Why are europeans dumb enough to buy amigas?
Brian Baltzell
can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
Lee Huggett
heohoahohoeahoahohaoehoaheohaeohaoehoho
no stop it, it hurts
SVGA...... CV64
Nobscrape.... Ibrowse or run SS and then run Nobscrape
Quake..... Neither can PCs, its not out yet. ANyway I own a PS and its getting
conv. to that
Nascar..... What? the drive round in circles thing? Big Deal!
Ever played Wipeout on a Pentium 100? Shite is being kind..
Overpriced.... Hmm so are Nike trainers, Reebok stuff, Levi, These items are
QUALITY. I don't mind paying for quality rather than CLONES!
WinTel..... Oh YEAH!! Lets pour more money in to two bloated companies that
churn out crap chips (well not bad chips) and Bloatware.
Why can't Earth have a kill file in hospital delivery rooms
Lee
****************************************
* Republico Presente CHANNEL NINE!!!! *
* Bueno Estente.. Butros Butros Ghali *
****************************************
Lee Huggett l...@burst.demon.co.uk
c925...@zeus.hud.ac.uk
kevin patrick kretsch
>amiga's suck. They still can't do SVGA, they can't run netscape, they
>can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
>overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
>the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
What's so great about SVGA?
Who needs netscape? (We have a better program) :)
Quake? Nascar? Ha!
In my books AmigaDOS beats MSDOS hands down, the Amiga still multitasks
better than _ANY_ other machine, is far nicer to use, emulate more
systems better than anything else (not that I ever need to) (and can't
be emulated itself), better graphics, better sound, and Final Writer
beats Word anyday of the week for WP/DTP. And that's at 50MHz!!
I might be dumb but the Gate's brainwashing machine won't get me! :)
Long live dumb Europeans!! (And the dumb Americans that use Amigas
'cause nothing else will do, including NASA.)
Kev.
--
Kevin P. Kretsch GradInstP e-mail: kkre...@alf2.tcd.ie
Research Scientist, Photonic Materials group,
Department of Physics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tel: +353 1 608 2039 Fax: +353 1 671 1759
Brian Baltzell
name. Sorry.
Brian Baltzell
John Sheehy
>>amiga's suck
>
>[drivel deleted]
>
>I don't know why I bother responding to this level of post. Maybe just
>once a month to keep my sanity.
>
>At any rate, AGA Amiga are _entirely_ capable of performing at resolutions
>far above the SVGA standard of 640 x 480. I would imagine Amigas can run
SVGA is 800*600, not 640*480.
John Sheehy <jsh...@netcom.com>
Jeffery S. Jones
Yes, it does include that resolution. But AGA can do that, and beyond.
AGA doesn't support 1024x768, but does support 1504x600.
I do think that this discussion should be limited to c.s.a.advocacy.
<tsb> | *Starfire* |
*-___________________________________________________________________-*
Jeff Jones email:jef...@execpc.com *//* Amiga Lives!
*TFG*Starfire*Design*Studio* *\\//* 1985-1994, born again 1995!
--
Peteroo
Sorry, you're mistaken. SVGA resolutions begin at 640 x 480 x 256 colors.
Mike Noreen
E> : amiga's suck. They still can't do SVGA, they can't run netscape, they
E> : can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
E> : overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
E> : the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
E> Ummm ... where to start? Oh Yes. Amiga's can't do SVGA. OK, they can't
Well, actually everything with a higher resolution than 640x480x8-bit
is SVGA, and Amigas can do that even without a gfxboard.
E> - as
E> if I give a flying f*ck. They can't run Netscape. Netscape isn't as good
E> as
E> it could be by a long chalk. Browsers are available and being updated to
NetScape is almost stable now. Doesn't crash more than every now and then.
E> Http
E> standard (+ Netscape eerrk). Quake? Nascar. They can't run Nascar. I'm
Actually, PCs cant run Quake either - it's not released. The rise of Duke
Nukem 3D has forced iD to release a beta of Quake, but many things aren't
implemented yet. Very alpha, actually.
Nascar... Guys, stay with Lotus Turbo Challenge. I wish that was available
for PC.
(Tim - you need to practice your backhand. You let the Cloner get away
with lots of BS!)
E> * Tim Lewis (a.k.a Eddie) * "You think I'm crazy!
MVH: Mike Noreen Internet: rad...@karkis.canit.se
FIDO: 2:201/411.14
Tarjei Knapstad
> amiga's suck. They still can't do SVGA, they can't run netscape, they
> can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
> overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
> the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
>
I didn't think anyone really wantede to get flamed, but I guess I'm
wrong. Maybe you're just a sad and lonely fucker, who don't have any
friends and just want something in your mailbox...
Cincerely,
"Real stupid european amiga owner"
David Corn
Kolenbrander) wrote:
>I can run Netscape on my Amiga. Using Shapeshifter.
It's slow compared to current Macs, but if that slowness is fast
enough for you...
>Whine : SVGA? Yes, but not out of the box...
>Answer: So? Neither can a PC. It needs a graphics card as
> well. And good ones cost as much as Amiga gfx cards.
Hardly. Many PCs come with graphics cards on the motherboard; I'd go
so far as to say that most name brand (ie Dell, Compaq, and IBM)
motherboards come with video on it.
>Whine : but for Shapeshifter you need a lot of memory.
>Answer: Well, Win'95 also needs at least 16MB to be workable.
> And a fast (at least) 486 processor as well.
8M 60ns EDO RAM -> $145 these days. Big deal.
>
>Conclusion: Another misguided Winloser. Or a dumb MS-VisBasic
> script.
Have you not used a PC?
Shane Kuntz
|> amiga's suck. They still can't do SVGA, they can't run netscape, they
|> can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
|> overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
|> the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
What's that smell? Whew!
Oh... someone opened a container of worms.
In other words, BAIT.
I'm impressed with your reference to lotsa colors, a browser and games..
Wait.. hold on.. I can do lotsa colors, browse and play games.. heck since
I just bought a nonlinear editing system I can actually do something worth
talking about. (oh.. in lotsa colors too, 24 bit to be exact)
Shane
mgo...@gil.com.au
: amiga's suck.
I guess I should be offended but I only take pity on such a narrow view
of the works. I have an Amiga it does all I want it too, the specs are
impressive - but irrelevant as it would do what I want with half the power.
I have one thing you don't - a computer I am *very satisfied* with it is
superb to me and that is all that counts. If you don't like it that is
just another problem you'll have to deal with. As far as the troll goes,
I not agro I'm not European so I guess it's ok for me to own a few Amigas ;)
@..@
(----)
Regards ( >__< ) Mick
^^ ~~ ^^
P A Williamson
(David Corn) wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 96 19:04:27 +0100, pa...@serena.iaehv.nl (Paul
> Kolenbrander) wrote:
>
> >I can run Netscape on my Amiga. Using Shapeshifter.
>
> It's slow compared to current Macs, but if that slowness is fast
> enough for you...
>
Are you trying to tell us that a Mac/PC runs (Netscape) faster at 28.8
than Shapeshifter runs (Netscape) at 28.8. The data only moves so fast ya
know. :-)
Andre Weissflog
> >At any rate, AGA Amiga are _entirely_ capable of performing at resolutions
> >far above the SVGA standard of 640 x 480. I would imagine Amigas can run
>
> SVGA is 800*600, not 640*480.
>
SVGA is not defined.
640x480 at 16 colors is VGA, 640x480 at 256 colors is not.
====//=== Andre Weissflog <fl...@mkmk.in-chemnitz.de> =======
...// Sep'95: Return Of The Living Death...................
\\// 90% of everything is crap (Sturgeon's Law)...........
=\\===============================================Amiga!=
:=Rob=:
> >
> >[drivel deleted]
> >
> >I don't know why I bother responding to this level of post. Maybe just
> >once a month to keep my sanity.
> >
> >far above the SVGA standard of 640 x 480. I would imagine Amigas can run
>
> SVGA is 800*600, not 640*480.
Actually, SuperVGA only means better than VGA. There is no standard SVGA
resolution, although practically any SVGA card will have at least
800x600. So the mere mention of the term SVGA is irrelevant.
John Sheehy
>>SVGA is 800*600, not 640*480.
>
OK, try this: "SVGA includes 800*600 (non-interlaced), not just 640*480".
John Sheehy <jsh...@netcom.com>
Karl Thomas
>S.E. Morris <fi...@csc.liv.ac.uk> wrote:
>: In article <3134A8...@sound.net>,
>: Brian Baltzell <br...@sound.net> writes:
>: > they can't run netscape,
>: Run IBrowse instead. I beleive it's HTML3 compatable.
Does Ibrowse support frames, plug-ins, secure transactions, Java or
JavaScript?
>: Intel x86 - CISC technology originally designed in the 1970's. Due to die
>: out before the end of the decade as RISC takes over.
Last time I checked the 68K line wasn't doing that great either.
Terry Palfrey
andrews) writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <4h8pv6$1...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
> References: <1280.6633...@burst.demon.co.uk>
> Posted: 1 Mar 1996 23:31:02 -0700
>
> Org. : Primenet (602)395-1010
>
> Lee Huggett <L...@burst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : Overpriced.... Hmm so are Nike trainers, Reebok stuff, Levi, These
> items are
> : QUALITY. I don't mind paying for quality rather than
> CLONES!
>
>
> So do you like your new A4000T? Just as I thought, couldn't afford one.
> Gee now why is that?
>
> How many of you phony "advocates" actually bought an A4000T? Yep just as
> I thought, too expensive. Yes you know it, don't lie now.
>
> am...@primenet.com Jack Andrews
>
Uh, Jack...the people who bought A4000T's were professionals who
actually make their money from their machines. And because they
are working professionals they can afford the tools they actually
use and need. Not only that they have little time to spend in
advocacy explaining this to you because they are busy making money
and producing things on their A4000T's.
Once again. Yes, A4000T's are expensive. And without an 060 are
underpowered next to the hyped image of Win95Pentiums and the
PowerMac facade. AT is not here to give machines away. They are
a startup company getting on their feet.
The fact that you either cannot afford or will not pay the price
for an A4000T is neither here nor there. It is their call not yours.
You have admitted to using an A3000 with only a graphics board for
enhancement. You haven't been a prospective customer for a long time.
You don't need the new machine, nor do you have a financially
compelling reason to acquire one.
At least you know you have cheap options available with the PowerMac
and Pentiums. So all you are doing here is spreading sour grapes over
the AMIGAS chance at continuing on and advancing. It's an open forum
and all so have your say. Escom bought the technology, it set up AT
and there are machines on the market again and new software and third
party peripherals. If you cannot afford it take one of the alternatives.
If you want to keep up your "I love the AMIGA and use it" spiel whilst
crapping all over the prices you become part of the problem and not part
of the solution.
Terry
Solar
> amiga's suck. They still can't do SVGA, they can't run netscape, they
> can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
> overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
> the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
Shutup. Get real. Get off this newsgroup if you don't like it.
Who needs SVGA? I am doing fine with my workbench. I can choose:
660x440 pixel, 60 Hz, 256 color (DBLNTSC with Overscan),
660x550 pixel, 50 Hz, 256000 color (DBLPAL with Overscan and the HackAGA-
program from AmiNet that allows for
HAM8-Workbench),
800x600 pixel, 72 Hz, 256000 color (SUPER72 interlaced and HackAGA).
I do not need any grafic card for this. If I need more gfx power, I add
one and go for 1600x1280 pixels at true color. duh.
Who needs Netscape? I do not have Internet access or software at home, but
I am using 486-66 units with Netscape at the University. And boy, I really
cannot understand the Netscape hype. There are Web Browsers for the Amiga.
I don't know quake or nascar. Do *you* know Worms? By chance I know the so-
called "minimum resources" needed for this nice piece of gaming for the PC:
386-40, 4 MByte RAM, CD-ROM. *ha!* I played just the same game on my friend's
A500 (MC68000, 7 MHz, 512 KByte RAM, 1 floppy drive, no HD).
Overpriced? I got my A1200 including a very fine monitor, a very comprehensive
software package and a HD for 1500,- DM. That's about 1000$. Then I added some
RAM. Let's say 4 MByte, which makes for a total of 6 MByte. This is an aweful
lot for the target user of the A1200 (entry level means improved typewriter,
if you face it). 100,- DM for the board, 200,- DM for the SIMM. 1800,- DM or
1200$.
Now give me *your* calculation. You'll need at least a 486DX-66 to run Win95,
the only Windows version that can even *dare* to call itself a competetive OS.
To run it and its applications *without disk swapping* as comfortably as with
my 6 MB A1200, you will need at least 12 MByte of RAM, perhaps even 16 MB.
You need an E-IDE Controller and a harddisk of 630 MByte *MINIMUM*, facing the
size of Win95 and the 32bit Software coming with it. You need a VGA/SVGA gfx
card, a soundcard of at least 8bit, 4 channel stereo. You will need a CD-ROM,
because Win95 applications are hideously big. You need a 14" monitor. You need
software: Win95, Word for Win95, Excell for Win95, Access for Win95, CorelDraw
for Win95. An organiser (I cannot think of one for the PC right now, but won't
be hard) *IN 32bit OR IT WON'T PREEMPIVELY MULTITASK*, a DataStore-equivalent
(dto) and a PhotoGenics-Equivalent (dto). A pinball game and a jump-and-run
game. Then you will have to install everything - and get it to work smoothly
together. Oops, I forgot ScalaMM300. You need a MultiMedia presentation pro-
gramm, too.
Now, you have a system that is comparable in performance to the A1200. Go to
your local store, face them this list and then tell me how much they would
charge for it *including assembly and installation*.
And you have a system that *creeps* along and that is not really supported
any more because the market shifts to the Pentium/PCI. Duh.
And, to be honest, I have worked with Win95 on a 486DX4-100 with 16 MByte RAM.
Jesus, if they call this comparable to a finely tuned AmigaOS, they are really
nuts.
Just my 0.03 DM (0.02$). ;)
--
Martin Baute
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Solar aka Die_Krise (on IRC) - <So...@HRZ.Uni-Bielefeld.de>
// A1200 HD EC020 CPU 14 MHz 170/8 MB HD/RAM
\\ // Viva Amiga!
\X/ Not MS-compatible - and proud of it
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amiga is back to show how it is done - See: http://www.amiga.de/
EVEN UNDERLID
>>is SVGA, and Amigas can do that even without a gfxboard.
>all the fuzzies!) or INCREDIBLY slow graphics (8 bit color, not so hot
>for pictures, but the only usable mode for anything BUT pictures).
>Did I mention incredibly slow graphics? :)
Not in everything. Games i.e. is often much faster and smoother on an Amiga,
Worms is an example that springs to mind.
Scrolling on the Amiga is great and most 3D gfx (lightwave and stuff like
that) don't require a fast display.
And remember, the OS on the Amiga is faster on my 28mhz 020 Amiga (800x600)
than on most 486PCs running OS/2 or Win95 in the same res.
>A graphicsboard is a requirement for anyone used to the standard high
>resolutions of even the cheapest clones.
>Where's the Amiga browser that can hold a candle to Netscape 2.0?
They are on their way. Ibrowse looks VERY promising, and so do Nightwalker
(will be bundled with all the "surfer" Amigas). Aweb seems good, and let's not
forget all the others which i don't remember the name of.
On the PC, Netscape seems to have a monopoly and nobody develops anything
else. On the Amiga we have 4 or 5 good browsers in development.
And - where is a good offliner for the PC? Something like THOR?
-- Rustybrain -- Sigop AMIGAvsPC at Global Issue (tlf.56599956) CALL NOW!
#|-ERROR-Tags-|# WindowError:019 User error. It's not our fault. Is not! Is
not!
John Darrell Kesling
>>SVGA is 800*600, not 640*480.
>Sorry, you're mistaken. SVGA resolutions begin at 640 x 480 x 256 colors.
Yep, you're right. VGA max is 640 x 480 x 16 colors, so SVGA would
start at 640 x 480 x 256 colors. Actually VGA is limited to 256 colors
so you could say that even 320 x 200 x >256 colors is where SVGA starts.
Don't forget multi-tasking. With my Amiga 2500 I can browse the web,
FTP a file, unarc the previous file and play a game, all at the same
time and all while I'm backing up my hard disk to tape.
My 75 Mhz Pentium has about all it can do just to run netscape
without crashing.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kesling - jkes...@shell.portal.com or jkes...@norden1.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WA8ZGO - via AX.25 packet radio WA8...@W8HHF.OH.USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Markus Neumayer
>On 3 Mar 1996 07:11:14 GMT, jkes...@shell.portal.com (John Darrell
>Kesling) wrote:
>>Don't forget multi-tasking. With my Amiga 2500 I can browse the web,
>>FTP a file, unarc the previous file and play a game, all at the same
>>time and all while I'm backing up my hard disk to tape.
>>
>>My 75 Mhz Pentium has about all it can do just to run netscape
>>without crashing.
>My Toshiba 400CDT portable is able to do the above flawlessly and with
>superior products compared to what is on the Amiga...without crashing.
>It has a Pentium 75 in it.
>Tell us about your P75 that has so many problems. 4M of RAM? :)
IMHO the problem is _NOT_ the hardware (we run several Pentiums without
problems, using Linux) but the OS and software (if WinXX read: _CRAPWARE_).
To the part of netscape... This program is still quite unstable. It even
crashes on our workstations, usually with a memory failiure... rather
ridiculous on a HP apollo 715/100 with 64 MByte physical RAM and 370 MByte
swapspace.
BTW. ever tried to print a structured drawing with Corel Draw to a file
and then printing it?? So much on the "superiour" software...
Best regards,
Markus
---
\|/
@ @
*******************************oOOO(_)OOOo*************************************
Inorg. & Analyt. Chemistry * Markus Neumayer, Dipl. Chem. Univ.
Dept. of Chemistry * s-mail: Lichtenbergstr. 4
Techn. University Munich * 85754 Garching
GERMANY * e-mail: mar...@hiris.anorg.chemie.tu-muenchen.de
*******************************************************************************
WWW Homepage: http://hiris.anorg.chemie.tu-muenchen.de/people/markus/
*******************************************************************************
Markus Neumayer
>Don't read the first post it was a joke. My friend posted it in my
>name. Sorry.
If you have friends like this, I think you don't need any enemies.
:-(
>Brian Baltzell
Markus,
kevin patrick kretsch
>Everything you said about the Amiga is true. They are great machines.
>But the rediculous overpriced A4000T is a disgrace and stinks of a rat.
>am...@primenet.com Jack Andrews
Has anyone ever sat down and figured it out? When you think about it,
it's not vastly over priced. How much would it cost to get a PC that you
(i.e. an Amiga user) would be happy with?
For me, I would have to spend at least an equivalent amount on a PC to
keep me smiling the way the amiga does. Take into account the enormous
overheads that PCs have in terms of memory and hard drive space. Lets
face it, a PC with 8MB of ram is _barely_ enough for _any_ user to run
windows 95. Give me an Amiga with 8MB, and for most people that leaves
plenty extra. In terms of useable ram and HD space, you need a lot more
than that on a PC, 18MB+ ram and a BIIIIG hard drive. That adds a few
hundred dollars to the cost of your standard pentium system. (When I say
big I mean I would require 1.5GB+ hard drive on a pentium.)
What price good multitasking? (Particularly when using a modem where the
system interrupts on a PC will cause trouble far more often than an amiga,
including the old A500.)
Put the graphics capabilities of the Amiga on top, no sound card
required, etc., etc., and you must admit, there may still be a gap in
price but it's not THAT big! Admittedly the PC wins the price war for
raw processing power but that's no use if ya can't use it! :)
Karl Thomas
>In article <3134A8...@sound.net>, you write:
>Who needs SVGA? I am doing fine with my workbench. I can choose:
>660x440 pixel, 60 Hz, 256 color (DBLNTSC with Overscan),
>660x550 pixel, 50 Hz, 256000 color (DBLPAL with Overscan and the HackAGA-
> program from AmiNet that allows for
> HAM8-Workbench),
>800x600 pixel, 72 Hz, 256000 color (SUPER72 interlaced and HackAGA).
>I do not need any grafic card for this. If I need more gfx power, I add
>one and go for 1600x1280 pixels at true color. duh.
Do you really want to compare an interlaced graphics mode to SVGA? HAM
is so slow its basically unusable. Why is it that anything that the Amiga
doesn't have that every modern platform has, the Amiga doesn't need? One
minute Amiga users say "We don't need fast processors" and the next minute
you're bragging about Vapor-PowerAmiga.
>Who needs Netscape? I do not have Internet access or software at home, but
>I am using 486-66 units with Netscape at the University. And boy, I really
>cannot understand the Netscape hype. There are Web Browsers for the Amiga.
Right/ What Web Browser for the Amiga supports frames, JavaScript, Java,
ShockWave, RealAudio, a VRML broswer, cookies, and the myriad of other
Netscape plug-ins.
>I don't know quake or nascar. Do *you* know Worms? By chance I know the so-
>called "minimum resources" needed for this nice piece of gaming for the PC:
>386-40, 4 MByte RAM, CD-ROM. *ha!* I played just the same game on my friend's
>A500 (MC68000, 7 MHz, 512 KByte RAM, 1 floppy drive, no HD).
You're comparing Quake and Nascar to Worms? Why would anyone care about
either a 386 or an a500? They are both old and outdated. What
difference does it make when people are buying $1100 PowerMacs and
Pentium systems?
>Overpriced? I got my A1200 including a very fine monitor, a very comprehensive
>software package and a HD for 1500,- DM. That's about 1000$. Then I added some
>RAM. Let's say 4 MByte, which makes for a total of 6 MByte. This is an aweful
>lot for the target user of the A1200 (entry level means improved typewriter,
>if you face it). 100,- DM for the board, 200,- DM for the SIMM. 1800,- DM or
>1200$.
You're bragging about this? For $1300 you can get a PowerMac 6116 with
8Megs of RAM, a 500Mb Hard Drive, a good quality 14" monitor, a modem, a CD-ROM
drive, and loads of software
>Now give me *your* calculation. You'll need at least a 486DX-66 to run Win95,
>the only Windows version that can even *dare* to call itself a competetive OS.
>To run it and its applications *without disk swapping* as comfortably as with
>my 6 MB A1200, you will need at least 12 MByte of RAM, perhaps even 16 MB.
>You need an E-IDE Controller and a harddisk of 630 MByte *MINIMUM*, facing the
>size of Win95 and the 32bit Software coming with it. You need a VGA/SVGA gfx
>card, a soundcard of at least 8bit, 4 channel stereo. You will need a CD-ROM,
>because Win95 applications are hideously big. You need a 14" monitor. You need
>software: Win95, Word for Win95, Excell for Win95, Access for Win95, CorelDraw
>for Win95. An organiser (I cannot think of one for the PC right now, but won't
>be hard) *IN 32bit OR IT WON'T PREEMPIVELY MULTITASK*, a DataStore-equivalent
>(dto) and a PhotoGenics-Equivalent (dto). A pinball game and a jump-and-run
>game. Then you will have to install everything - and get it to work smoothly
>together. Oops, I forgot ScalaMM300. You need a MultiMedia presentation pro-
>gramm, too.
>Now, you have a system that is comparable in performance to the A1200. Go to
>your local store, face them this list and then tell me how much they would
>charge for it *including assembly and installation*.
Besides the software, which you would have to pay extra for also, you can
get a dx/2-66 with all of the hardware you named for less than $1300 and
you would have a much faster system. Just look in Computer Shopper
sometimes.
>And you have a system that *creeps* along and that is not really supported
>any more because the market shifts to the Pentium/PCI. Duh.
A dx/2-66 doesn't creep along at all. But if a dx/2-66 creeps, an Amiga
must run backwards.
kevin patrick kretsch
>I won't spoil your fun by telling you the origins of the PPC currently
>used in Macs. In any case, I'll agree that the Motorola designs are
>cleaner, but with Intel's bucks, I don't forsee any problems for quite
>some time in processing power.
David, you havn't spolied my fun. We all know that (and they're still
better than a ..X86!). :)
Anyway, that's not my point. If intel have so many bucks and there will
be no problems, why have the great intel shelved expansion plans, let
go 200 staff, (I'm talking about their Leixlip plant just outside Dublin
where 90% of the worlds pentium chips pass through every year), and
continually flood the market with the damn things?
If that sounds like no problems to you, I hope you're never my boss! :)
(Nothin' personal)
David Corn
wrote:
>SVGA 640x480 - no problem! Try 1280x512 and beyond.
I think we're speaking of non-interlaced, non-flickery, 72 hz output
or better. In other words, output for NORMAL eyes.
>> they can't run netscape,
>
>Run IBrowse instead. I beleive it's HTML3 compatable.
From a good long look at their web page about a month ago, I'd say it
isn't even remotely close.
>Run AB3D, or maybe one of the other 3D full screen 1x1 pixel games
>available. Breathless even multitasks with the rest of the system
>without any problems. No need to use half a dozen different system
>configuration files.
?? I've got no config.sys or autoexec.bat, yet I manage to run all of
the games I've yet tried flawlessly.
>> they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
>>overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
>>the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
>
>Intel x86 - CISC technology originally designed in the 1970's. Due to die
>out before the end of the decade as RISC takes over.
I won't spoil your fun by telling you the origins of the PPC currently
Patrick William Mackin
>
> Do you really want to compare an interlaced graphics mode to SVGA? HAM
> is so slow its basically unusable. Why is it that anything that the Amiga
> doesn't have that every modern platform has, the Amiga doesn't need? One
> minute Amiga users say "We don't need fast processors" and the next minute
> you're bragging about Vapor-PowerAmiga.
No, the AMIGA has about everything it needs now, except for a
good custom graphics solution (ie custom chips? or gfx
cards?). As soon as PPC Amiga is out (within a year, and they
STILL don't have IBM PPCs!!! so I wouldn't compare your PC to
the Amiga until one of us gets PPC!!!) it will be totally
all-powerful!
> Right/ What Web Browser for the Amiga supports frames, JavaScript, Java,
> ShockWave, RealAudio, a VRML broswer, cookies, and the myriad of other
> Netscape plug-ins.
Oh, and Netscrape does all that, right?
Whatever.
Incidintally, I programmed a, what I though was nice, HTML 3
page the other day. It looks great in IBrowse, or any of the
*real* browsers that do not use their own proprietary markup
language, but in Netscrape, NOTHING is contered, the images
extend off the page forever, etc. etc. So I guess I'll have to
ADD EXTRA code to the "SIMPLER" Netscrape format... At least
until there is an official Amiga browser out of beta!
> >I don't know quake or nascar. Do *you* know Worms? By chance I know the so-
> >called "minimum resources" needed for this nice piece of gaming for the PC:
> >386-40, 4 MByte RAM, CD-ROM. *ha!* I played just the same game on my friend's
> >A500 (MC68000, 7 MHz, 512 KByte RAM, 1 floppy drive, no HD).
>
> You're comparing Quake and Nascar to Worms? Why would anyone care about
> either a 386 or an a500? They are both old and outdated. What
> difference does it make when people are buying $1100 PowerMacs and
> Pentium systems?
You're totally dodging the point. The point is that a game
like Worms, which can run on a 7 Mhz, 1/2 MB RAM Amiga, is at
least as good as the Crap that is out there for the pee cee.
> You're bragging about this? For $1300 you can get a PowerMac 6116 with
> 8Megs of RAM, a 500Mb Hard Drive, a good quality 14" monitor, a modem, a CD-ROM
> drive, and loads of software
I don't think so.
If that were true, I think they would have a better market
share than 7% or whatever. I mean, their 040 models used to
cost $2000+ a year or two ago.
> Besides the software, which you would have to pay extra for also, you can
> get a dx/2-66 with all of the hardware you named for less than $1300 and
> you would have a much faster system. Just look in Computer Shopper
> sometimes.
Eh?? Not with all that software he mentioned!! Most of which
isn't even comparable on the PC (Scala, Photogenics, etc.)
Then, you mention "speed" We Amiga users do not NEED a computer
that "has more MIPS" than our next door neighbors.. We just
need A BETTER machine.. With custom chips and premptive
multitasking that DO NOT REQUIRE a 486 or Pentium to work!
> >And you have a system that *creeps* along and that is not really supported
> >any more because the market shifts to the Pentium/PCI. Duh.
>
> A dx/2-66 doesn't creep along at all. But if a dx/2-66 creeps, an Amiga
> must run backwards.
Uh, Using Windoze, especially 95, which is what will probably
become the standard quite soon, it most certainly does crawl.
My Amiga 3000 with a 25 mhz 030, ALWAYS has a speedy workbench,
and I almost never get "low memory" messages, and if I do,
that's cuz I've only got 4 megs. Try running Winslows on THAT!
Stephen Takacs (GE)
: amiga's suck. They still can't do SVGA, they can't run netscape, they
: can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
: the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
Why waste your money on windoze? Get Linux...
Bill Near
<> so...@dozy.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de (Solar) writes:
<>
<> >In article <3134A8...@sound.net>, you write:
<>
<> >Who needs SVGA? I am doing fine with my workbench. I can choose:
<> >660x440 pixel, 60 Hz, 256 color (DBLNTSC with Overscan),
<> >660x550 pixel, 50 Hz, 256000 color (DBLPAL with Overscan and the HackAGA-
<> > program from AmiNet that allows for
<> > HAM8-Workbench),
<> >800x600 pixel, 72 Hz, 256000 color (SUPER72 interlaced and HackAGA).
<> >I do not need any grafic card for this. If I need more gfx power, I add
<> >one and go for 1600x1280 pixels at true color. duh.
<>
<> Do you really want to compare an interlaced graphics mode to SVGA? HAM
<> is so slow its basically unusable. Why is it that anything that the Amiga
<> doesn't have that every modern platform has, the Amiga doesn't need? One
<> minute Amiga users say "We don't need fast processors" and the next minute
<> you're bragging about Vapor-PowerAmiga.
Sorta like clone owners, eh? "We don't need preemptive
multitasking", "Multimedia? What's that?", "Games are for
toy computers!", "Custom chips to take the load off of the
CPU? Yeah, whatever." Do any of these sound familiar?
--
---------------------------------------------------
Bill ////\ wn...@epix.net
Near ////\\\ A2000/030@50/Picasso II/Supra V.34
//// \\\\ _____ __ _
\\\\ ////___\\\\ //// |\ /| | / \ / \
\\\\///-----\\\\/// | \/ | | | __ /---\
\\\\/ \\\\/ | | __|__ \__/ / \
Contributing Editor @ Amiga Report Magazine
---------------------------------------------------
Karl Thomas
>Hello Karl Thomas , you wrote the following on 02-Mar-96 10:45:26 . This is how I reply
>>Jack andrews <am...@primenet.com> writes:
>>>S.E. Morris <fi...@csc.liv.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>: In article <3134A8...@sound.net>,
>>>: Brian Baltzell <br...@sound.net> writes:
>>>: > they can't run netscape,
>>>: Run IBrowse instead. I beleive it's HTML3 compatable.
>>Does Ibrowse support frames, plug-ins, secure transactions, Java or
>>JavaScript?
>It supports frames, secure transactions (it should do soon anyway)
>and plug-ins probably through Arexx (start up other programs etc)
You're talking about two different things. Plug-ins allow other
companies to integrate proprietary formats within web pages where they
seem like an integrated page. What you are talking about is more like helper
apps where the browser launches another app to viw or translate a document.
For instance, some sites use a combination of Real Audio, Shockwave, and
Java for interactive pages.
psychoholic
>In <3134A8...@sound.net> Brian Baltzell <br...@sound.net> writes:
>>amiga's suck. They still can't do SVGA, they can't run netscape, they
>>can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
>>overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
>>the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
>What's so great about SVGA?
>Who needs netscape? (We have a better program) :)
>Quake? Nascar? Ha!
>In my books AmigaDOS beats MSDOS hands down, the Amiga still multitasks
>better than _ANY_ other machine, is far nicer to use, emulate more
>systems better than anything else (not that I ever need to) (and can't
>be emulated itself), better graphics, better sound, and Final Writer
>beats Word anyday of the week for WP/DTP. And that's at 50MHz!!
>I might be dumb but the Gate's brainwashing machine won't get me! :)
>Long live dumb Europeans!! (And the dumb Americans that use Amigas
>'cause nothing else will do, including NASA.)
>
> Kev.
>--
>Kevin P. Kretsch GradInstP e-mail: kkre...@alf2.tcd.ie
>Research Scientist, Photonic Materials group,
>Department of Physics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
>Tel: +353 1 608 2039 Fax: +353 1 671 1759
Whoa, can't we all just get along? I figure I should add my two cents.
I was a commodore user from my old 5k vic20 to my former Amiga 1200.
In theire times, each was at the top of the class but if you say the
Amiga's dead then commodore killed it. I'm sure it's different in
Europe, but it's about impossible in the US to find any Amiga stuff
except by mail and most of that comes from overseas which means higher
shipping and heaven help you if you need tech support. I stuck with my
Amiga while all my friends with PC's bought cool new games and
software, while I watched store after store discontinue their Amiga
lines. I am a hardcore gamer and the current crop of Amiga games
really suck with a few exceptions. They are still trying to come up
with a decent DOOM clone, while that game is old news to PC's. In
addition many Amiga games did not even allow you to install to
hardrive which meant lots of irritating disk swapping and an eternity
waiting for loading. Most games were still written to run on a box
stock A500 as well. You can argue until the cows come home about which
system is better. The truth is multitasking doesn't do me much good if
I have no programs with which to do it. I will be more than happy to
buy another Amiga if they ever get a foot in the US market but for
right now my pentium suits me just fine. It pretty much came with
everything I (and probably the average home user) need in a computer.
I am not knocking the Amiga by any means. It is a helluva system and
easier to use than IBM clones as well, but I don't have $$$ to chunk
down for a bunch of graphics stuff which is the main advantage to
Amigas( besides, I have no artistic talent). I guess what I want to
say is that the main function of a computer is to run software. You
can have the fastest system and best OS around but if you ain't got
shit to run on it, then it might as well be a paperweight.
P.S. I still think Earl Weaver's Baseball was one of the greastest
computer games ever written. It still beats a lot of baseball games
made 10 years later!
Frank Lazar
so...@dozy.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de (Solar) wrote:
>
>
> Who needs Netscape? I do not have Internet access or software at home, but
> I am using 486-66 units with Netscape at the University. And boy, I really
> cannot understand the Netscape hype. There are Web Browsers for the Amiga.
>
>
It's quite simple really, the Netscape folks thought of some cute HTML
tricks which only work with THEIR browser. Plus the latest rage in
plug-ins such as Java and Shockwave keep it in the news. If you think the
hype is hot now, wait and watch now that Microsoft has declared it's
challenge for Web domminance. The wholesale abandonment of HTML standards
will become an increasing problem for Amiga and other platform browsers
which are more "generic".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| _ |
| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ |
| We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ |
| Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ |
| And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ |
| \\__// \\ |
| These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ |
| \\ |
| |Frank Lazar fml...@ritz.mordor.com| \\ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Kuntz
|> On 3 Mar 1996 07:11:14 GMT, jkes...@shell.portal.com (John Darrell
|> Kesling) wrote:
|>
|> >Don't forget multi-tasking. With my Amiga 2500 I can browse the web,
|> >FTP a file, unarc the previous file and play a game, all at the same
|> >time and all while I'm backing up my hard disk to tape.
|> >
|> >My 75 Mhz Pentium has about all it can do just to run netscape
|> >without crashing.
|>
|> My Toshiba 400CDT portable is able to do the above flawlessly and with
|> superior products compared to what is on the Amiga...without crashing.
|> It has a Pentium 75 in it.
|>
Nevermind the "what portable did you buy?" question previously.
|> Tell us about your P75 that has so many problems. 4M of RAM? :)
All P75's aren't created equal. Win95 is supposed to run great in 4meg of
RAM, right? And on a 385/50 according to the minimal requirements.
With the minimal req's a P75 can't compete with a A500? :)
Shane
Action Jackson
>amiga's suck. They still can't do SVGA, they can't run netscape, they
>can't run quake, they can't run nascar. But best of all they're way
>overpriced. It seems like europeans are the real dummies, they bought
>the dead body of commodore. Get with the program, get Wintel.
bECAUSE we are not dickheaded Yanks... With P90 & 32 Mb RAM just to
Run a Word processor.
I do REAL PRODUCTIVITY on my Machine. The stuff REAL people watch &
droll on TV. You dickhead most probably watch my work on TV every day
and wonder just how its done (most probably dont realise that its
created on an Amiga). YES. DIP SHIT. AMIGA. R E A D... N O T P C
Enough Said. Just Flame him...
-------------------------------------------------------------
A4000/40 2+16 Mb RAM, Z3 fastlane + 8Mb RAM, 540Mb HD,
128 Mb Optical, NEC CD Player, CyberVision 64 - 4Mb, Ethernet
GVP Phone Pak II, G-Lock Genlock, Did I forget anything ;-)
A1000+A2000+A500+CDTV+A3000+A1200+A4000/40... A4000T/PPC next
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Darrell Kesling
>dc...@paradise.pplnet.com (David Corn) writes:
>>On 3 Mar 1996 07:11:14 GMT, jkes...@shell.portal.com (John Darrell
>>Kesling) wrote:
>>>My 75 Mhz Pentium has about all it can do just to run netscape
>>>without crashing.
>>Tell us about your P75 that has so many problems. 4M of RAM? :)
Nope, 16M of ram, the problem is called Windows '95.
>IMHO the problem is _NOT_ the hardware (we run several Pentiums without
>problems, using Linux) but the OS and software (if WinXX read: _CRAPWARE_).
>To the part of netscape... This program is still quite unstable. It even
>crashes on our workstations, usually with a memory failiure... rather
>ridiculous on a HP apollo 715/100 with 64 MByte physical RAM and 370 MByte
>swapspace.
I agree, but I still prefer Motorola microprocessors to Intel.
Remember, Microsoft gave the Amiga community AmigaBasic. Is it any
wonder they can't do any better than Windows '95.
>BTW. ever tried to print a structured drawing with Corel Draw to a file
>and then printing it?? So much on the "superiour" software...
The only reason we even have the Pentium is because of the availability
of applications. Quality of the applications is an altogether different
story. There is certainly a very high percentage of "_CRAPWARE_" out
there for the Windows environment.
Given similar applications I can be many times more productive on the
Amiga than in a Windows '95 environment. And that's with much less
horsepower and hardware on the Amiga.
Nathanael J Henderson
: No, the AMIGA has about everything it needs now, except for a
: good custom graphics solution (ie custom chips? or gfx
: cards?). As soon as PPC Amiga is out (within a year, and they
: STILL don't have IBM PPCs!!! so I wouldn't compare your PC to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IBM has been making and shipping PowerPC computers for quite some
time, from servers in their RS/6000 line to a couple portables. Motorola
has been shipping PPC Win NT machines for a long time now, too. Of
course, these aren't "IBM PC's" in the sense of Windows clones, but they
are out there.
----
"I was practically naked, dressed as a dominatrix and was slapping the
audience with this huge rubber dick I was carrying. (Bill Gates)
wandered by, so I started screaming 'Serve Me! Serve Me!' and put the
dick on his shoulder--at which point, he emitted a mouse-like squeal and
ran away. It was quite a scene." Slymenstra (GWAR)
Jeff Wahaus, CAPS, ATL, x3529
>
> Seconded. What the hell is the use of an 8 litre V8 in a "town car"? My
> Polo is a 1 litre, 4 cylinder unit, and will quite happily sit at 70Mph
> all day. And it'll do 45Mpg. (Hey, good PC-Amiga simily there).....
>
> J.
Ahh, but you don't understand. Us Americans like a car that will
do 0-70Mph in 4 seconds. What if you're cruising at 70Mph and need to
pass someone? 1L ain't going to get you there.
One thing I noticed in my recent visit to the UK... all of the little
go-cart like cars cluttering the road. Love those round-abouts though.
Wish we had them here in the US.
But if you must know, the reason our cars have such big engines is
that gas over here is still pretty cheap; around 60 pents a gallon.
-Jeff Wahaus-
jef...@verifone.com
Joerg Stegemann
>By the way, PowerPC is probably not the best example of a RISC chip,
>as its Instruction Set (>100) is anything but Reduced, and its
>architecture is not among the simplest (although simpler than the
>current Intel x86 CPUs).
I looked into the manuals of the PA-RISC and the MIPS-Architecture some time
ago and all of them have >100 Instructions, so that is not a measure of
"RISCiness"
Ciao, Joerg
Tiitus Tamminen
->You needed to remove them to get the games to work...? :->
(autoexec.bat & config.sys). No, the point was Win95 doesn't need them.
Most of my MS-DOS games work straight from the Win95, no need to
configure any autoexec.bats and config.syses.
->Intel have a 700Mhz Pentium lined up for next year...?
->Boy - *this* I gotta see!!! :->
->Does it come with free ice cap? :->
I'm sure you hate those DEC Alpha RISC CPUs as well, as they already
run at at least 300MHz. That's one of the key features of RISC chips:
keep them simple so that you can push the MHz up, and gain speed that way.
By the way, PowerPC is probably not the best example of a RISC chip,
as its Instruction Set (>100) is anything but Reduced, and its
architecture is not among the simplest (although simpler than the
current Intel x86 CPUs).
--
TLT ---> WWW homepage at http://spider.compart.fi/~ttammi/ <---
Tiitus Tamminen
->How does it feel to know your future will be confined by CISC?? :->
No, it won't. Intel is already working on other "implementations".
The only reason Intel still sells CISC CPUs is because unlike e.g.
Motorola, they have been able to constantly push the speed up while
still keeping the price down. They probably cannot do that forever,
but so what? Then they will introduce a new chip, which can run x86
code faster than the older chips through emulation. In a way, they,
and Cyrix and AMD as well, are already doing this.
If it worked for Motorola (the jump from 680x0-line to PPC), it will
work for Intel as well. Motorola made this jump earlier, not because
they wanted to, but because they _had to_. 680x0 ran out of steam
earlier than the x86-line.
Christer Bjarnemo
>so...@dozy.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de (Solar) writes:
>>Who needs Netscape? I do not have Internet access or software at home, but
>>I am using 486-66 units with Netscape at the University. And boy, I really
>>cannot understand the Netscape hype. There are Web Browsers for the Amiga.
>Right/ What Web Browser for the Amiga supports frames, JavaScript, Java,
>ShockWave, RealAudio, a VRML broswer, cookies, and the myriad of other
>Netscape plug-ins.
But IBrowse and Netscape have the same amount of "undocumented features" :-)
Im using Netscape quite often at work, and "stable" isn't the word i would be
using. When it comes to ram; it sucks most of the 16mb just like Michael Jackson
su.... eh, well.. :-)
>A dx/2-66 doesn't creep along at all. But if a dx/2-66 creeps, an Amiga
>must run backwards.
I wouldn't say that a dx2/66 is fast. Infact, Breathless have _higher_ framerate
(in 320x256) on my 030/50 than Hexen (in 320x200) on the dx2/66's at work. Maybe
not a fair comparison, but nothing i have tried is faster on their dx2/66
compared to my machine (except mpeg since i don't have a graphic card).
But this discusion is pointless, so we better drop it guys...
..Christer...@mailbox.swipnet.se
--
Beta-Tester for the RASTER Software group - Current Project: BUBBLE BOBBLE
--
EVEN UNDERLID
>: sometimes.
>The PC might technically be faster, but the Amiga would FEEL much
>faster than the DX/2 using the most commonly supported OSs
>on each platform. :)
No OS on the PC is anywhere near AmigaOS in speed. The only way the PC could
challenge the Amiga in terms of OS is if both machines use Linux/Unix,
i think :-) Correct me if i'm wrong...
-- Rustybrain -- Sigop AMIGAvsPC at Global Issue (tlf.56599956) CALL NOW!
#|-ANTIPC-Tags-|# Windows: an Unrecoverable Acquisition Error!
EVEN UNDERLID
>>competetive OS. To run it and its applications *without disk swapping* as
>>comfortably as with my 6 MB A1200, you will need at least 12 MByte of RAM,
>>perhaps even 16 MB. You need an E-IDE Controller and a harddisk of 630 MByte
>>*MINIMUM*, facing the size of Win95 and the 32bit Software coming with it.
>>You need a VGA/SVGA gfx card, a soundcard of at least 8bit, 4 channel
>>stereo. You will need a CD-ROM, because Win95 applications are hideously
>>big. You need a 14" monitor. You need software: Win95, Word for Win95,
>>Excell for Win95, Access for Win95, CorelDraw for Win95. An organiser (I
>>cannot think of one for the PC right now, but won't be hard) *IN 32bit OR IT
>>WON'T PREEMPIVELY MULTITASK*, a DataStore-equivalent
>>(dto) and a PhotoGenics-Equivalent (dto). A pinball game and a jump-and-run
>>game. Then you will have to install everything - and get it to work smoothly
>>together. Oops, I forgot ScalaMM300. You need a MultiMedia presentation pro-
>>gramm, too. Now, you have a system that is comparable in performance to the
>>A1200. Go to your local store, face them this list and then tell me how much
>>they would charge for it *including assembly and installation*.
>Besides the software, which you would have to pay extra for also, you can
>get a dx/2-66 with all of the hardware you named for less than $1300 and
>you would have a much faster system. Just look in Computer Shopper
>sometimes.
What is this crap? Haven't you seen the Amigamagic packs yet?
With EVERY Amiga today you get organizer, photogenics, personal paint (i'm not
sure about this one, though!), wordworth, Scala MM300 (not with nonHD machines,
though!), datastore and some kind of a spreadsheet (cannot remember what it's
called though!).
-- Rustybrain -- Sigop AMIGAvsPC at Global Issue (tlf.56599956) CALL NOW!
#|-DZ-Tags-|# Hvorfor Thor når du kan drive hor???
Simon Rogers
>...you can get a dx/2-66 with all of the hardware you named for less than >$1300 and you would have a much faster system.
>
>The PC might technically be faster, but the Amiga would FEEL much
>faster than the DX/2 using the most commonly supported OSs
>on each platform. :)
>
>--
> Stuart Tomlinson IRC: Casper
> 'I told you I was a good dancer.'
To support Stu's point, I am sitting here at work using two PCs running
Windows 3.11. One of them is running Netscape - the other is formatting a
floppy disk. Why is it Karl, that two DX2-66 ("much faster systems") are
required to complete these tasks simultaneously. I suppose you don't
find this at all suprising. Using these machines is bloody infuriating
after being used to the apparent speed of my 14Mhz Amiga.
Rocka.
____________
Simon Rogers
Bill Near
<> On 5 Mar 1996 20:13:51 GMT, wn...@epix.net (Bill Near) wrote:
<>
<> >Sorta like clone owners, eh? "We don't need preemptive
<> >multitasking", "Multimedia? What's that?", "Games are for
<> >toy computers!", "Custom chips to take the load off of the
<> >CPU? Yeah, whatever." Do any of these sound familiar?
<>
<> software in the past.
<> Amiga owners - Unknowledgeable and with substandard hardware and
<> software in the present.
<>
<> Which would you rather be?
<>
<> ... oh, well...rhetorical question. :)
I'll answer it anyways! :-)
So, clone owners are now knowledgeable because they have
standard hardware and software today, and...
Amiga owners were knowledgeable in the past when they had
standard hardware and software?
Hmmm, weird logic.
Amiga owners have ALWAYS been in-the-know, while clone
owners have ALWAYS been clueless. :-)
David Corn
(Patrick William Mackin) wrote:
>STILL don't have IBM PPCs!!! so I wouldn't compare your PC to
>the Amiga until one of us gets PPC!!!) it will be totally
>all-powerful!
"All-powerful"? Are we talking about computers here?
Anyhow, IBM has had a RISC PPC line for quite some time now.
>> Right/ What Web Browser for the Amiga supports frames, JavaScript, Java,
>> ShockWave, RealAudio, a VRML broswer, cookies, and the myriad of other
>> Netscape plug-ins.
>
>Oh, and Netscrape does all that, right?
Of course.
>Whatever.
>Incidintally, I programmed a, what I though was nice, HTML 3
>page the other day. It looks great in IBrowse, or any of the
>*real* browsers that do not use their own proprietary markup
>language, but in Netscrape, NOTHING is contered, the images
>extend off the page forever, etc. etc. So I guess I'll have to
>ADD EXTRA code to the "SIMPLER" Netscrape format... At least
>until there is an official Amiga browser out of beta!
I'd love to see the code. That's unusual, to say the least. I
suspect user error, based on your other incorrect assertations.
>You're totally dodging the point. The point is that a game
>like Worms, which can run on a 7 Mhz, 1/2 MB RAM Amiga, is at
>least as good as the Crap that is out there for the pee cee.
1. Why not raise the argument that games are great on the C64, too?
2. An A500 running stuff "at least as good" as the PC stuff? I don't
think so. :)
>> You're bragging about this? For $1300 you can get a PowerMac 6116 with
>> 8Megs of RAM, a 500Mb Hard Drive, a good quality 14" monitor, a modem, a CD-ROM
>> drive, and loads of software
>
>I don't think so.
>If that were true, I think they would have a better market
>share than 7% or whatever. I mean, their 040 models used to
>cost $2000+ a year or two ago.
Apparently you don't shop around too frequently.
>Uh, Using Windoze, especially 95, which is what will probably
>become the standard quite soon, it most certainly does crawl.
>My Amiga 3000 with a 25 mhz 030, ALWAYS has a speedy workbench,
>and I almost never get "low memory" messages, and if I do,
>that's cuz I've only got 4 megs. Try running Winslows on THAT!
4M costs $63. Are you serious about this? The WB/KS upgrade alone
costs more than that!
Darien Graham-Smith
On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, David Corn wrote:
> Read the FAQ. It doesn't hold a candle to Netscape 2.0 or MSIE2.0.
I fear it does. Do you know what 'to hold a candle' to something MEANS?
The phrase (properly 'not fit to hold a candle to') means that the subject
is so vastly inferior to the object that it isn't fit even to provide a
light in which to view its superior. Now, IBrowse may lack some of the more
erudite extensions of Netscape 2.0 but it is most certainly NOT a
candle-bearer to Netscape's virtuoso. It does 80% of what Netscape does
perfectly and more's on the way. You didn't ask me to point out an Amiga
browser that's the equal of Netscape. I freely admit that there is none.
But credit where it's due...
__
==========================================================================///=
darien graham-smith / de...@hermes.cam.ac.uk / the truth is in here __ ///
[all opinions expressed above are my own and are therefore correct] \\\///
======================================================================\XX/====
Ken Nipper
>hype is hot now, wait and watch now that Microsoft has declared it's
>challenge for Web domminance. The wholesale abandonment of HTML
standards
>will become an increasing problem for Amiga and other platform
browsers
>which are more "generic".
>
yeah, right. like amiga has a problem emulating any other "generic
system" (my eyes rolling in contempt)
James Neale
> > Polo is a 1 litre, 4 cylinder unit, and will quite happily sit at 70Mph
> > all day. And it'll do 45Mpg. (Hey, good PC-Amiga simily there).....
> Ahh, but you don't understand. Us Americans like a car that will
> do 0-70Mph in 4 seconds. What if you're cruising at 70Mph and need to
> pass someone? 1L ain't going to get you there.
Yes it will. Eventully. (Just don't make me slow down on a hill, 'cos I'm
NEVER gonna get the speed back up it....!)
> One thing I noticed in my recent visit to the UK... all of the little
> go-cart like cars cluttering the road. Love those round-abouts though.
> Wish we had them here in the US.
Roundabouts are great. Can have some REALLY good accidents on em...
> But if you must know, the reason our cars have such big engines is
> that gas over here is still pretty cheap; around 60 pents a gallon.
Yeah, I know. And your country is so ****ing massive...
Shane Kuntz
|> On 6 Mar 1996 01:50:53 GMT, crk...@sgiis4.sdrc.com (Shane Kuntz)
|> wrote:
|>
|> >|> >Don't forget multi-tasking. With my Amiga 2500 I can browse the web,
|> >|> >FTP a file, unarc the previous file and play a game, all at the same
|> >|> >time and all while I'm backing up my hard disk to tape.
|> >|> >
|> >|> >without crashing.
|> >|>
|> >|> superior products compared to what is on the Amiga...without crashing.
|> >|> It has a Pentium 75 in it.
|> >|>
|> > Well.. if I would have kept on reading your portable stats are right here.
|> > Nevermind the "what portable did you buy?" question previously.
|> >
|> >
|>
|> one of perhaps 5 companies makes most of those. Oh, you mean the
|> cards in the system. Well, one of perhaps 5 companies makes most of
|> the chips on the market for video, audio, etc. Oh, you mean the user
|> configuration.
|>
Minus the user configuration a P75 can a dozen different graphics cards,
a dozen different sound cards, and a dozen different motherboards.
so that's 12^3 or 1728 different configs. That estimate is probably
pretty low also given the P75 addon cards, backwoods manufacturers,
ram configs, etc.
|> I can't help you there. :)
|>
|> > RAM, right? And on a 385/50 according to the minimal requirements.
|> > With the minimal req's a P75 can't compete with a A500? :)
|>
|> RAM is $60-70 per 4M SIMM. That's not what I'd consider a big issue.
|>
So the P75 needs this extra ram to compete with an A500. ok.
|> Tell me about that P75 with so many problems.
The previous poster did so. See above.
Shane
John Sheehy
Matthias Andree <M_An...@tribal.line.org> wrote:
>Why does iCOMP state a DX2/66 was almost twice as fast
>as a DX-33 whereas Dhrystone yields 34000 for 2/66 and 26000 (oder was
>it 28k) for 33 MHz? Think about it.
Maybe iCOMP is a CPU benchmark, and Dhrystone is a CPU/Memory benchmark.
A DX33 and a DX2/66 have the same speed outside the CPU, so only the cpu
section benefits on the DX2. Look at the 68040 on the A3000 and the
A4000. The 040 is a faster CPU than the 030, but the 030 can write to the
chipram and zorro buses faster. You have to differentiate between CPU
benchmarks, and system benchmarks.
John Sheehy <jsh...@netcom.com>
mis...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> : with a decent DOOM clone, while that game is old news to PC's. In
>
> look sad and it only costs 290UKP.
No, the playstation certainly has the edge pricewise, but a p6 is quite a bit
better at graphics, (though to be fair, their are very few _games_ which
currantly take advantage of the power.) Anyway, this is irrelevant, as well as
consoles being limited to only games, the problem is that they only shine for a
few months and then you're stuck with a dated system.
>
> Isn't it funny how the Amiga used to be derided as a 'games machine'. Now
> that the PC games market is buzzing it's suddenly a case of 'Amiga games
> are no good'. Some people make you want to chuck.
Subtle difference - the Amiga was _written off_ as a games machine, in the same
way I just wrote off the playstation <g>, the PC, king in the business and
related fields, is now _also_ awesome for gaming, the Amiga has never been in
this position and is now arguably poor in both fields. Presumably this is the
reason behind at least _some_ of such comments, and looks like valid enough
logic to me. The rest is prob just bigoted drivel like you say.
Seeya
*****
Don't flame me - I just call 'em as I see 'em. Besides which, if it isn't
reasoned argument, it's just more worthless air gushing into the balloon that
is Internet. :)
*****
UNREGISTERED VERSION
I find it quite funny, that Amiga users always feel the need to justify their
choice.
I've worked with Macs and PCs too. But when you're acustomed to AmigaOS, both
are rather frustrating.
O.k., Amiga 4000s /are/ expensive. Power has it's price. Regarding power, the
Amiga comes close to $10,000,- workstations.
--- Syiad
Of course, there's no crocodile under your bed
... but don't forget to make sure!
UNREGISTERED VERSION
>On Thu, 29 Feb 96 22:02:41 +0100, Mike Noreen
><Mike....@p14.anet.canit.se> wrote:
>>Well, actually everything with a higher resolution than 640x480x8-bit
>>is SVGA, and Amigas can do that even without a gfxboard.
>Sure, if you don't mind INCREDIBLY slow graphics (HAM8 at that, with
>all the fuzzies!) or INCREDIBLY slow graphics (8 bit color, not so hot
>for pictures, but the only usable mode for anything BUT pictures).
>Did I mention incredibly slow graphics? :)
>A graphicsboard is a requirement for anyone used to the standard high
>resolutions of even the cheapest clones.
Try to use Win on a PC /without/ a gfx board. You can't!
Now, _every_ Amiga works without a gfx board. If you want higher resolutions
and/or more color, then you need the board.
>Where's the Amiga browser that can hold a candle to Netscape 2.0?
IBrowse is still in beta state (so is Netscape). Mindwalker is coming up. But
you're right, they should port Netscape to AmigaOS!
--- Syiad
Of course, there's no monster in your wardrobe
Tiitus Tamminen
->Again, the 680x0 line did not run out of steam because of hardware
->reasons. It was a decision to kill it in favour of the PPC - after all,
When I said the 680x0 line ran out of steam, I didn't mean the clock speed
couldn't have been pushed even further. But I think Motorola realized soon
enough that they don't have _resources_ to do that, unlike Intel.
Tiitus Tamminen
->I agree that they are cheaper than the Amiga ones, but they still
->cost a lot, and most Amigausers like AGA, and think that is good
->enough for their needs.
(Trio64 based cards). No they don't, they're dirt cheap these days.
As far as the prices go, they're considered the low end currently.
They're the cards clone manufacturers put into their cheap clones
down here. If you want a better card (like a Matrox Millenium), you
can tell them to replace it.
IMO Trio64 chipset has probably the best price/performance ratio of
all PC 2D accelerators at the moment. It's pretty fast in both
Windows and MS-DOS, cards using it can easily do something like
75Hz on 1024x768x16bit (even the DRAM versions) etc.
->Then the motherboards cost more...just as if you bought a seperate
->soundcard.
No, the price disparity is much less (than buying a separate 16bit
sound card). But you didn't think all those sound chips and graphics
chips on the Amiga motherboards come free, did you?
->What does SBawe32 cost in USA then? (I don't know, but it costs a
->lot here)
Beats me, I don't live anywhere near US. What does a "Ultrasound Classic"
or "Ace" cost in your country? It should be dirt cheap, yet it gives
you 16 16bit stereo channels with high SNR.
Mike Noreen
MNB> I have gotten so used to those "erudite" extensions of Netscape and
MNB> refuse to use any browser without them. If I ever move to Internet
MNB> Explorer, it will be only if it does everything Netscape does, but
MNB> better. I like being able to view pages with Java scripts or Java
MNB> applets, or imbedded QuickTime or Shockwave animations, or imbedded Real
MNB> Audio sound files. Can you do ANY of that with an Amiga browser?
I bet you got a panel of blinking light on your Mac too. First of all,
Marc - you don't have a dial up account do you? I mean, Java and Quicktime
are just a nuisance if you do. Even if you DON'T have a dial-up account
they're mostly nuisances taking up valuable screen real estate and doing
absoulutely nothing useful. But it's nice to hear that the Mac version of
NetScape actually supports Java now - it didn't a month ago. Perhaps it
doesn't even crash once an hour anymore? But who cares about things like
that - it beeps and has blinking buttons to press.
MNB> Marc Barrett
MVH: Mike Noreen Internet: rad...@karkis.canit.se
FIDO: 2:201/411.14
A.S.T....@ncl.ac.uk
>----
>"I was practically naked, dressed as a dominatrix and was slapping the
>audience with this huge rubber dick I was carrying. (Bill Gates)
>wandered by, so I started screaming 'Serve Me! Serve Me!' and put the
>dick on his shoulder--at which point, he emitted a mouse-like squeal and
>ran away. It was quite a scene." Slymenstra (GWAR)
ROTFL!!!!
Andy
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2856
Bruce Hoins
>>all the fuzzies!) or INCREDIBLY slow graphics (8 bit color, not so hot
>>for pictures, but the only usable mode for anything BUT pictures).
>>Did I mention incredibly slow graphics? :)
>>A graphicsboard is a requirement for anyone used to the standard high
>>resolutions of even the cheapest clones.
>Try to use Win on a PC /without/ a gfx board. You can't!
>Now, _every_ Amiga works without a gfx board. If you want higher resolutions
>and/or more color, then you need the board.
>>Where's the Amiga browser that can hold a candle to Netscape 2.0?
>IBrowse is still in beta state (so is Netscape). Mindwalker is coming up. But
>you're right, they should port Netscape to AmigaOS!
No we shouldn't. I don't want that much bloat on my system. I have an
excellent multi-tasking machine. Leave the news reading, mail reading and
other nonsense on the seperate programs. Give me a browser that lets me drop
off mail on a site (by calling my mail program thank you) shows HTML (1-3)
VRML, will do an occasional d/l (The FTP programs are so much more efficeint
anyway.) passes address to my ftp program and is stable and you have the
ultimate web browser. Now granted Netscape is the most tollerant (does not
follow the full standard) of the HTML readers that I have seen but that is
what a web browser is supposed to be. Everything else is bloat. IBrowse is
close. Just needs a few more little tweeks and it will more than do.
Jonathan Belson
: > If you want to play games, get a Playstation. It makes P6 166MHz systems
: > look sad and it only costs 290UKP.
:
: No, the playstation certainly has the edge pricewise, but a p6 is quite a bit
: better at graphics, (though to be fair, their are very few _games_ which
: currantly take advantage of the power.) Anyway, this is irrelevant, as well as
: consoles being limited to only games, the problem is that they only shine for a
: few months and then you're stuck with a dated system.
My comparison was based on seeing TFX II running at about 5 frames per
second on a P6 at my local PC World.
: > Isn't it funny how the Amiga used to be derided as a 'games machine'. Now
: > that the PC games market is buzzing it's suddenly a case of 'Amiga games
: > are no good'. Some people make you want to chuck.
:
: Subtle difference - the Amiga was _written off_ as a games machine, in the same
: way I just wrote off the playstation <g>, the PC, king in the business and
: related fields, is now _also_ awesome for gaming, the Amiga has never been in
: this position and is now arguably poor in both fields. Presumably this is the
: reason behind at least _some_ of such comments, and looks like valid enough
: logic to me. The rest is prob just bigoted drivel like you say.
I suppose it comes down to bad marketing - it was so far ahead when it was
released but the advantage was lost. The PC isn't sold on merit, people
buy what they are told to buy...Software is developed for the machine with
the biggest market. I'm lucky enough to be able to use an Amiga at work
but I'm in the very small minority.
C-YA
Jon
Avi Lev
>
> some...@clinet.fi (Juha Vanhanen) wrote:
>
> > Let it be anything you want. A stock AGA Amiga can handle 800x600, too,
> > and with a Gfx-card resolutions you can't even imagine. No offense.
>
> Also no offense, but you are a bit confused. The Amiga gfx-cards use PC
> graphics chips such as the S3. So it is incorrect to say the Amiga
> resolution "cannot be imagined" by a PC user. Such resolutions are
> *far* more common to PCs than to Amigas, supported by more software, and
> moreoever, the newer PC chips are much faster than the ones used in
> Amiga graphics cards.
>
> - steve
i'll keep with the "no offense" tradition and start by asking, are you comparing an Amiga to a
PC?? boy you are a making a mistake and a BIG one cuz the amiga was and still is multimedia
oriented more than any other personal computer and especially when it comes to the PC. in the
PC everything has to have some CPU intervention while in the Amiga the CPU doesn't even handle
a byte when it's related to graphics display, there are advanced support chips reponsible for
relieving the CPU of such tasks and thus true multitasking is very much possible on the amiga
than on the PC. the PC centrelises everything around the CPU and thus the CPU is more busy
doing housekeeping jobs than actual processing while 60Mhz Amiga can run better than a P120 on
most conditions. the PC is decades behind the Amiga and when PowerAmiga comes to the scene,
hell you'll be ancient history, something to remember the old days when the computers were
being developed, believe me no Amiga owner was ever dissapointed s/he bought the machine, try
working even with a basic A500 and see the difference and don't compare the 2 machince by thier
software support cuz that ain't a good measure, try running some benchmarks on a PC and an
Amiga and you'll see the difference.
Dobroslaw Krawczynski
>>On Thu, 29 Feb 96 22:02:41 +0100, Mike Noreen
>><Mike....@p14.anet.canit.se> wrote:
>>>Well, actually everything with a higher resolution than 640x480x8-bit
>>>is SVGA, and Amigas can do that even without a gfxboard.
>>Sure, if you don't mind INCREDIBLY slow graphics (HAM8 at that, with
>>all the fuzzies!) or INCREDIBLY slow graphics (8 bit color, not so hot
>>for pictures, but the only usable mode for anything BUT pictures).
>>Did I mention incredibly slow graphics? :)
>>A graphicsboard is a requirement for anyone used to the standard high
>>resolutions of even the cheapest clones.
Well that's because you need one to have graphics! We don't!
Yes AGA is slow but then again it has a lot of good things about it.
Scala is pretty shitty on the PC and so is the whole multimedia aspect
of the PC's. However the PC is unrivaled when it comes to jerkiness.
>Try to use Win on a PC /without/ a gfx board. You can't!
>Now, _every_ Amiga works without a gfx board. If you want higher resolutions
>and/or more color, then you need the board.
>>Where's the Amiga browser that can hold a candle to Netscape 2.0?
ell Amiga mosaic is the best compared to Netscape when number of
crashes is considered. NS crashes at least once a day regardless of
which machine you run it on 16MB P75 or 8MB 486.
>IBrowse is still in beta state (so is Netscape). Mindwalker is coming up. But
>you're right, they should port Netscape to AmigaOS!
Karl Thomas
by writing:
>On 4 Mar 1996, Karl Thomas wrote:
>> >800x600 pixel, 72 Hz, 256000 color (SUPER72 interlaced and HackAGA).
>> >I do not need any grafic card for this. If I need more gfx power, I add
>> >one and go for 1600x1280 pixels at true color. duh.
>>
>> Do you really want to compare an interlaced graphics mode to SVGA? HAM
>> is so slow its basically unusable. Why is it that anything that the Amiga
>> doesn't have that every modern platform has, the Amiga doesn't need? One
>> minute Amiga users say "We don't need fast processors" and the next minute
>> you're bragging about Vapor-PowerAmiga.
>Hey .GIF jerk!
How mature.
>Why do you keep going? Are you feeling ripped off after buying that PC
>machine???
Nope, because I bought a Mac.
>We love the Amiga and will continue with it. And people who buy one will
>obviously have one too. and if you wanna have that PC, fine..
No I don't want to have a PC...well unless you count the dx/2-66 card
inside my P-Mac.
>But when you brag about your cool PC and how cheap it is. Then I must
>tell you that the 2nd hand market on Amigas is very high. So if you
>compare a PC that was bought 1992 (very likely to be a 386SX 16Mhz) and
>an Amiga 3000 bought the same year you will find that your PC is worth
>just about nothing while you can sell your A3000 for the price of a new
>PC of today...
That's only because a high-end Amiga in 1996 is the same thing as a
high-end Amiga of 1992. Not exactly something to brag about in the
computer industry.
Bill Near
<> ><> bECAUSE we are not dickheaded Yanks... With P90 & 32 Mb RAM just to
<> ><> Run a Word processor.
<> >
<> >Hey! Some of us "Yanks" love Amigas and wouldn't touch a
<> >filthy clone with a ten foot pole!
<>
<> Relax, he said "dickheaded Yanks", not "Yanks" in general...
Well, that's different. :-)
Dan Green
>> : really suck with a few exceptions. They are still trying to come up
>> : with a decent DOOM clone, while that game is old news to PC's. In
>>
>> look sad and it only costs 290UKP.
>
>No, the playstation certainly has the edge pricewise, but a p6 is quite a bit
>better at graphics, (though to be fair, their are very few _games_ which
>currantly take advantage of the power.) Anyway, this is irrelevant, as well as
>consoles being limited to only games, the problem is that they only shine for a
>few months and then you're stuck with a dated system.
Are you kidding me? First of all, a P6 doesn't even do graphics on its own :)
Second, a playstation can handle more textured polygons than a P6, ie. BETTER
DOOM. You can't even compare the calculation power of the P6 to a graphics
only processor.
/Dan
David Corn
McArthur) wrote:
>G'Day David Corn, you wrote:
>: On Sun, 3 Mar 1996 19:17:57 +0000, Darien Graham-Smith
>: <de...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>: >
>: >On Sat, 2 Mar 1996, David Corn wrote:
>: >
>: >> Where's the Amiga browser that can hold a candle to Netscape 2.0?
>: >
>: >I think it's at http://www.omnipresence.com/ibrowse/ but I might have got
>: >the URL slightly wrong as I'm quoting from memory.
>
>: Read the FAQ. It doesn't hold a candle to Netscape 2.0 or MSIE2.0.
>
>MSIE 2?? Dont make me laugh..
>
>Netscape 2.0 I'd believe esp now that it is getting more Java support and
>VRML..
MSIE2 is a very nice browser; perhaps you can tell us why you don't
like it?
NS2.0 is great, especially for plug-ins, but MSIE2 has VRML already;
that's nothing new.
I use both; I like both; I just think you aren't looking at MSIE2.
David Corn
>: In that it will read and display simple HTML, yes, you're correct.
>: However, the better sites are moving to HTML 3/NS2.0/MSIE2.0
>: compatible HTML, which, unfortunately, isn't what IBrowse really does.
>
>Here is a guy who does not have an Amiga, nor the current v0.73 beta, knows
>exactly what he is talking about! He knows everthing about the current status
>of the software/hardware! IBrowse is coming along fine and can already do some
>things NetRape can't. I'll leave it to you to find that out for youself.
>
>Stop making a fool of your self Corn, I'm dying laughing here!
Ah! A clueless Amiga advocate!
Let me count the ways.
Real Audio support? Nope.
Java support? Nope.
Java authoring tools? Nope.
VRML? Nope.
Ah; this is too easy. Let's just view what IBROWSE *CAN* do:
Capable of multiple windows (see screenshots)
...This was standard in Netscape....1.2, wasn't it? A year ago, more?
Allows multiple network connections.
...ditto.
Recent tests has shown IBrowse to be up to 30 times faster than
AMosaic when you resize
the window.
Real life test has shown IBrowse to be 1.5 - 3 times faster than
AMosaic accessing the net.
...which shows just how bad the Amiga WWW situation is...
Supports local disk caching. Caches all pages, images etc. and
uses the cache next time the
same page is accessed.
...this is ancient history, folks.
UI is highly configurable. (eg. You can place the toolbar where
you like it. see screenshots)
Modular design. Adding SSL is just a question of adding a new
http.library
...right, but who'll write http.library?
Will support all HTML1-3 and Netscape (eerk!) commands.
...it will? When? Still it's way behind NS and MSIE...
'Anti Netscape mode' Warns if the page contains nhtml and/or
html3 tags. Useful when
designing pages. This is of course optional.
...because it can't support those tags?
Does not require AmiTcp/AS225 to be started. Will only ask for
AmiTcp when accessing
the net.
Allows asyncronous access to the net. Playing an mpeg movie of
the net is possible.
...this is old stuff, folks.
Is a 100% Amiga product.
...oh; I'm sure it'll be a best seller, then.
This is the problem - there's so little Amiga software that what -is-
out there gets spotlighted, and when it's show for what it is (I'm
sure it's a fine, simple WWW browser) it loses its luster compared to
what's on other platforms rather quickly.
Where're the plug-ins?
Where's the ability to call other programs to add features?
... where are those other programs?
The Amiga just doesn't have what it takes -if- WWW browsing is
important to you. Granted, for many people, it isn't.
Lars Eilebrecht
UNREGISTERED VERSION <10071...@compuserve.com> wrote:
[...]
> O.k., Amiga 4000s /are/ expensive. Power has it's price. Regarding power,
> the Amiga comes close to $10,000,- workstations.
Reality check please!
ciao...
Lars
--
_____ ____ __
/\___// __// / __ S...@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de (Shadowfox@IRC)
\ \ / /_\ / /\_\ http://www.unix-ag.uni-siegen.de/~sfx/
___\ \/ __// \ \/_/
/____\/_/ /_/\ \ - "Humans are communications junkies.
\_\ - We just can't get enough." (Alan Kay)
Shane R. Monroe
> of the brainwash they are exposed to; PeeCee ads are everywhere and so are PeeCees.
> And, let's put something straight: AMIGAS WERE NOT MADE TO BECOME THE ULTIMATE
> GAMES MACHINES!!! But that *@%#! company Commodore marketed them as "home"
> machines and consequently they became toys in the eyes of the public.
>
> PeeCees became business machines because that's the only thing they could do:
> boooooring business applications. Even today, many companies use text-based
> data entry systems; and I've actually been to one for a few days! The Amiga
> however was meant to be "the computer for the creative mind", and in fact it
> still is. But the crowd can NOT see it because it's behind the scenes.
>
> I still am proud of being an Amiga owner and would only change it for a better
> Amiga. And someone tell me: how many PeeCee users out there can have a file
> finder, an image converter, an image viewer, a file compressor AND playing
> a game on the Spectrum emulator, ALL AT THE SAME TIME? Or, the PeeCee user's
> nightmare: doing something else while an application is printing! And I can
> do all that on my "toy" A1200 (68020!!!) with 6MB of RAM! Yes, it slows down the
> machine a lot (and I may run out of memory) but I can STILL play the game on the
> emulator at a proper speed! And all those at 3 mips!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Which is at least 30-40 times slower that a Pentium, innit?
>
> Well, I hope I made a lot (well, there ARE a lot of PeeCee users out there after
> all!) of jaws drop and eyes pop out! And possibly some Amiga users who are
> considering to change platform...
Alright, I will add my 2 cents worth on this topic as a long term Amiga
fanatic that now owns a PC as well.
Here is my opinion for whatever it is worth.
The Amiga
PROS: The best damn OS every created (3.1). The ONLY machine that
still truly multitasks for under $10K. It is the most versatile machine
ever created. It can do whatever you need of it with the right software
and hardware. If you want user power on the OS level, this is the RIGHT
machine. One of the best stock machines for video work (get SCALA and
see what I mean). The absolute BEST shareware market for any system.
You can own an Amiga and never buy commercial software and STILL have a
great system.
CONS: Incredibly crappy marketing, users who WON'T UPGRADE THEIR DAMN
SYSTEMS so we are all stuck playing vanilla A500 games from floppy,
companies that won't FORCE the users to upgrade (there are notable
exceptions). People who own the Amiga technology (at any given time in
history) won't make use of it properly. Its video handling was KICK ASS
in the 80's, now with all the polygon processors and chunky pixel 3D
games hitting the market (and taking the market) it is out of date. GFX
cards help, but until AT makes a graphics card the STANDARD on the
Amiga, it will take the backseat to PC and playstation. The need for
CDROM to be a STANDARD on the Amiga for about 6 years is killing the
hell out of the machine. Take note. I told this to Petro last July in
Pensylvannia, and I see nothing has changed. DUP is committed to the CD
market - THAT is the future. Better get the prices down too.
The PC (Pentium based, 16 MB, 1 GIG, 1MB graphic card, SB 16 or better)
PROS: Damn but it plays a good game of Duke Nuke Em 3d! I don't
remember the last time I had so much fun playing a computer game.
(Well, maybe Deluxe Galaga ;) More software than you can shake a stick
at. Global world-wide support. I can actually walk into an EB and get
a copy of NIGHT TRAP if I want it. FMV is finally getting it right -
PHANTASMAGORIA and SWAT are great examples - and these are actually FUN!
Shootemups are even getting good - Tyrrian is awesome. Hell, I even
saw BATTLE ARENA TOSHINDEN on the PC - and it was pretty damn good -
even on a P75. There are even some decent utilities like GOLDWAVE and
PAINT SHOP PRO as well as ACDSEE Win95. Internet software blows AWAY
anything currently on the Amiga. No discussion required. Plus, these
damn things just keep getting cheaper.
The CONS: Jeezus, can't you people EVER figure out how to make an OS???
Sure Win95 is a nice advance, but it is far from being worth its hard
drive space - I mean 52 megs? And I left stuff OUT??? The sound
quality is still lacking (yes I have heard an Ultrasound from Gravis)
but still doesn't match the hi-fi out of my Amiga - wavetable synthesis
is pretty brilliant tho. For those of you who wanted to argue earlier
about multitasking on the PC vs. Amiga above, just access drive A: in
Win95 and watch what happens: the system grinds to a stop. I can run 4
of them at a time with the Ami. Granted, the PC doesn't use the floppy
much at the same time ... Bloodthirsty and theivery in the
marketplace. Any system that REQUIRED a ram doubler, memory manager,
graphics accelerators, etc etc wasn't built right to begin with. These
bastards bleed the market every chance they get. It really is a
conspiracy. That is why I try and stay in the shareware market with the
PC. Homey don't play dat.
BOTTOM LINE: The PC isn't as bad as it was about 3 years ago and if
they ever do something RIGHT with the OS, they very well might push the
Amiga right off the ledge. PC is a great gaming and internet box, but
still leaves a lot to be desired in the OS. The Amiga is the ultimate
power home box with extreme versatility but is getting old and no one
seems to want to reach out and help it (users included). Expensive to
get into, but cheaper to 'maintain'.
'Nuff said...
Harold Klink
>dri...@eskimo.com (G. Baldwin) wrote:
>->Again, the 680x0 line did not run out of steam because of hardware
>->reasons. It was a decision to kill it in favour of the PPC - after all,
>When I said the 680x0 line ran out of steam, I didn't mean the clock speed
>couldn't have been pushed even further. But I think Motorola realized soon
>enough that they don't have _resources_ to do that, unlike Intel.
Perhaps that's why Pentia still have bugs?!
Get real, Intel sucks! Why do you think they "use special compilers"
and admit they cheated on the benchmark results?! Yes, they ADMITTED THAT
THEMSELVES!
Tshhh, why still buy stuff from those thieves?!
Harold.
Michael M. Rye
>On 7 Mar 1996 14:33:24 GMT, jam...@morinda.it.ntu.edu.au (James
>McArthur) wrote:
JM>Like one of the Compaq Presario.. SVGA graphics chips on the motherboard..
JM>About as upgradeable as the AGA chips..
DC>I disagree. Many PCs can be upgraded with more RAM, my old Packard
DC>Bell being among them. And adding a card is as simple as dropping it
DC>in; once you do so, your programs automatically make use of it.
I agree that a lot of PeeCee's with the graphics hardware on the
motherboard can be upgraded with more RAM. But, you must remember, there's
a lot of models out there that you cannot just drop a card into and have
it work. Many people believe this assumption, and then it doesn't work.
I've seen and "fixed" many with this problem. The solution is that you must
also remember that a lot of older machines also have a jumper that must
either be removed or moved to a different position in order to disable the
on-board graphics and enable the card.
??>: 8M 60ns EDO RAM -> $145 these days. Big deal.
JM>Who for.. The rich computer consultant, or the Uni Student..
DC>Actually, I just saw it for $108.
I'm going to ask again for the millionth time: Where are you finding
these prices???
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
* Michael M. Rye (Jedi) * A1200, 50 MHz '030, 50 MHz '882 *
* 17...@topcity.mn.org *__10 MB RAM, 850 MB HD, Supra 28.8k__*
* UNIX/C Admin/Design * A500, 1 chip/2 "fast", 2 floppies *
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
* Thought of the Day: *
* Luke, I'm your father ... Join the Darkside, you knob!! *
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Aki Laukkanen
>Are you kidding me? First of all, a P6 doesn't even do graphics on its own :)
>Second, a playstation can handle more textured polygons than a P6, ie. BETTER
>DOOM. You can't even compare the calculation power of the P6 to a graphics
>only processor.
Oh please, it's P6, not an 8086. Playstation maybe hot with polygons but P6 has
so much generic rendering power that with a P6 optimized 3d engine it's left in
the dust.
--
Daeron
The dustpan that the dirt can be swept into is not the true dustpan.
David Corn
McArthur) wrote:
>Like one of the Compaq Presario.. SVGA graphics chips on the motherboard..
>About as upgradeable as the AGA chips..
I disagree. Many PCs can be upgraded with more RAM, my old Packard
Bell being among them. And adding a card is as simple as dropping it
in; once you do so, your programs automatically make use of it.
>: 8M 60ns EDO RAM -> $145 these days. Big deal.
>
>Who for.. The rich computer consultant, or the Uni Student..
Actually, I just saw it for $108.
James McArthur
: <Mike....@p14.anet.canit.se> wrote:
: >Well, actually everything with a higher resolution than 640x480x8-bit
: >is SVGA, and Amigas can do that even without a gfxboard.
: Sure, if you don't mind INCREDIBLY slow graphics (HAM8 at that, with
: all the fuzzies!) or INCREDIBLY slow graphics (8 bit color, not so hot
: for pictures, but the only usable mode for anything BUT pictures).
: Did I mention incredibly slow graphics? :)
: A graphicsboard is a requirement for anyone used to the standard high
: resolutions of even the cheapest clones.
: Where's the Amiga browser that can hold a candle to Netscape 2.0?
Great Gfx == gfx card.
No matter what system, OS, CPU etc etc.
Its only a matter of cost..
--
___ ___ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ___ ______
/ /__/ // ___ \ / _____\_/ _____\_/\_/ ___ \/ /__/ // ___ \
\____ // / . // / jam...@it.ntu.edu.au / /\____ // / . /
<__/ \______/ \______/ \______/ \/ \______/ <__/ \______/
mis...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
>>better at graphics, (though to be fair, their are very few _games_ which
>>currantly take advantage of the power.) Anyway, this is irrelevant, as well as
>>consoles being limited to only games, the problem is that they only shine for a
>>few months and then you're stuck with a dated system.
>
> Second, a playstation can handle more textured polygons than a P6, ie. BETTER
> DOOM. You can't even compare the calculation power of the P6 to a graphics
> only processor.
This is a bit off-topic here, so replies to email I guess...
p6 refers to p6 powered computer. A playstation cannot handle more textured
polygons, especially when you consider the playstations texturemapping is the
same as that in descent - a bit faster than the proper method, but results in
jumpy textures, the p6, especially if the software makes use of its FPU (which
is pretty good 'cause Intel was aiming at the workstation market) can do quite
a bit better than the playstation by sheer brute force.
(BTW Doom on the PC is speed locked to no more than 35 fps, which a good 486
will reach. Running Doom on a decent Pentium you have so much power left idle
it's not funny (medusa won't slow ya down until you park your nose on it!), and
the p6 blows away a pentium anyway. Doom is a bad comparison because it is
different on the two platforms.)
I'm waffling, sorry, but I agree it is very difficult to compare a cpu with a
dedicated graphics chip, because the results are very much dependant on how
well the benchtest was written for the cpu, and how well suited to the job the
dedicated chip is.
UNREGISTERED VERSION
>that the PC games market is buzzing it's suddenly a case of 'Amiga games
>are no good'. Some people make you want to chuck.
Atari8bit to an AppleIIe instead of an Amiga because the Amiga was a plstic toy.
I then mentioned 4096 colors, blitter, multi-tasking, hardware scrolling and
sprites, advanced audio and was told that was preicsely why I should avoid it as
only a plastic little toy will ever use stupid stuff like color graphics and
fast graphics. Now the same exact people go on and on about the great astoudning
revolutions of color graphics and gfx accelerators, multimedia, etc. brought ot
us by the greatest of IBM and clone makers!
David Corn
VERSION) wrote:
>Try to use Win on a PC /without/ a gfx board. You can't!
This has been proven time and time again to be false.
>Now, _every_ Amiga works without a gfx board. If you want higher resolutions
>and/or more color, then you need the board.
Translation: If you want usable, normal resolution graphics, get a
card.
>IBrowse is still in beta state (so is Netscape). Mindwalker is coming up. But
>you're right, they should port Netscape to AmigaOS!
Your information is horribly inaccurate. Netscape 2.0 is no longer in
Beta, and hasn't been for quite some time. IBrowse really doesn't
compare to NS.
Matt Harrell
: CONS: Incredibly crappy marketing, users who WON'T UPGRADE THEIR DAMN
: SYSTEMS so we are all stuck playing vanilla A500 games from floppy,
: companies that won't FORCE the users to upgrade (there are notable
I have a serious problem with this. Demanding that everyone
spend huge amounts of money on something because you want software
that requires faster and better-equiped machines is absurd. The
software for Windows requires such monstrously fast machines often due
to poor programming more than anything else (and perhaps a lack of
standard chip sets). If you recall, in the earlier days of the Amiga,
one of its big appeals was that it cost quite a bit less than the
Macintosh and IBM clone competition (and was also better in just about
every conceivable measure). That's what got many of us into Amigas in
the first place. However, this just isn't the case anymore. I'm not
going to spend many hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year on my
computer just so others can have more, fancier, expensive software. I
use almost entirely freeware anyway because I can't afford the
outrageous amounts of money that much commercial stuff costs. Besides,
some of us have other hobbies that require funds, like audiophile
quality stereo systems :-)
--
-----========++++++++++********************++++++++++========-----
Matt Harrell Amiga 1200 running AmigaOS3.0
Lansing, MI U.S.A. CSA 12 Gauge 030/882RC@50MHz/SCSI
mhar...@sojourn.com 2MB chip/18MB fast RAM
240MB IDE hard disk
-----========++++++++++********************++++++++++========-----
Mike Noreen
AL> >Second, a playstation can handle more textured polygons than a P6, ie.
AL> BETTER
AL> >DOOM. You can't even compare the calculation power of the P6 to a
AL> graphics
AL> >only processor.
AL> Oh please, it's P6, not an 8086. Playstation maybe hot with polygons but
AL> P6 has
AL> so much generic rendering power that with a P6 optimized 3d engine it's
AL> left in the dust.
I doubt that. Even on the PC the trend (despites Intels best efforts) is
moving towards coprocessed gfx cards. I am convinced that a Playstation can
handle more/faster polygons than my current P5 is, despite a modest amount
of coprocessing from my gfx card.
AL> Daeron
Phil Shimmin
>
> In article <1996Mar11.221045@cantva>, mis...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> >> : really suck with a few exceptions. They are still trying to come up
> >> : with a decent DOOM clone, while that game is old news to PC's. In
> >>
> >> If you want to play games, get a Playstation. It makes P6 166MHz systems
> >> look sad and it only costs 290UKP.
> >
> >better at graphics, (though to be fair, their are very few _games_ which
> >currantly take advantage of the power.) Anyway, this is irrelevant, as well as
> >consoles being limited to only games, the problem is that they only shine for a
> >few months and then you're stuck with a dated system.
>
> Are you kidding me? First of all, a P6 doesn't even do graphics on its own :)
> DOOM. You can't even compare the calculation power of the P6 to a graphics
> only processor.
>
> /Dan
Yeah, but to be fair, I own a playstation and have played Doom, and it
is limited due to the lowish amounts of memory. Walls are missing, bits
of levels aren't there etc. I love the playstation, and would much
rather own one than a peecee (its so much more fun) despite my love of
strategy games. But it is going to struggle with bigger games. God knows
how they're planning to do Duke Nukem 3d. The PSX could easily handle
the graphics (and I mean /easily/), but the levels are so goddam big.
Anyway, why are we talking abou this ? This is an Amiga group surely.
Sad pc people, stop trying to justify yourselves and go struggle with
your system ;-)
Phil
Shane Kuntz
|> On 10 Mar 1996 22:07:14 GMT, crk...@sgiis4.sdrc.com (Shane Kuntz)
|> wrote:
|>
|> >|> Intel makes them all. Oh, you mean the motherboard and system. Well,
|> >|> one of perhaps 5 companies makes most of those. Oh, you mean the
|> >|> cards in the system. Well, one of perhaps 5 companies makes most of
|> >|> the chips on the market for video, audio, etc. Oh, you mean the user
|> >|> configuration.
|> >|>
|> > Minus the user configuration a P75 can a dozen different graphics cards,
|> > a dozen different sound cards, and a dozen different motherboards.
|>
|> Sure. But if we were to determine the average config, it would be a
|> Soundblaster - compatible 16 bit card, a VESA compliant S3 or Cirrus
|> Logic video board, and one of several dozen motherboards from the big
|> three major vendors. All told, that isn't THAT diverse.
|>
The average person in america is brown haired, female, age 35, 5 foot 6
inches tall.. How many people do these average config's leave out? :)
|> > so that's 12^3 or 1728 different configs. That estimate is probably
|> > pretty low also given the P75 addon cards, backwoods manufacturers,
|> > ram configs, etc.
|>
|> Can you detail "RAM configs" for me?
|>
Sure. The various amounts of Ram an individual can purchase a P75 from
various manufacturers with. Packages as low as 4 meg all the way to 64
or 128 megs.
|> > So the P75 needs this extra ram to compete with an A500. ok.
|>
|> Just as the A500 needs non-existant software to compete with a modern
|> P75, I'd strongly suggest the P75 have 8 or 16M of RAM. However, it's
|> easy to get 8 more M of RAM for the P75; getting software for the
|> Amiga is very, very difficult for the average consumer.
|>
There are those averages again... Anyone with half a brain can easily
find Amiga software. Remember those dealers in Dallas I informed you of? :)
|> >|> Tell me about that P75 with so many problems.
|> >
|> > The previous poster did so. See above.
|>
|> I think it was his P75...I'd hoped for more details.
Then ask him.
Shane
David Corn
wrote:
>|> Intel makes them all. Oh, you mean the motherboard and system. Well,
>|> one of perhaps 5 companies makes most of those. Oh, you mean the
>|> cards in the system. Well, one of perhaps 5 companies makes most of
>|> the chips on the market for video, audio, etc. Oh, you mean the user
>|> configuration.
>|>
> Minus the user configuration a P75 can a dozen different graphics cards,
> a dozen different sound cards, and a dozen different motherboards.
Sure. But if we were to determine the average config, it would be a
Soundblaster - compatible 16 bit card, a VESA compliant S3 or Cirrus
Logic video board, and one of several dozen motherboards from the big
three major vendors. All told, that isn't THAT diverse.
> so that's 12^3 or 1728 different configs. That estimate is probably
> pretty low also given the P75 addon cards, backwoods manufacturers,
> ram configs, etc.
Can you detail "RAM configs" for me?
> So the P75 needs this extra ram to compete with an A500. ok.
Just as the A500 needs non-existant software to compete with a modern
P75, I'd strongly suggest the P75 have 8 or 16M of RAM. However, it's
easy to get 8 more M of RAM for the P75; getting software for the
Amiga is very, very difficult for the average consumer.
Matthias Andree
> In article <xP1FzMD5...@trib0039.tribal.line.org>,
> Matthias Andree <M_An...@tribal.line.org> wrote:
> >Why does iCOMP state a DX2/66 was almost twice as fast
> >as a DX-33 whereas Dhrystone yields 34000 for 2/66 and 26000 (oder was
> >it 28k) for 33 MHz? Think about it.
>
> Maybe iCOMP is a CPU benchmark, and Dhrystone is a CPU/Memory benchmark.
> A DX33 and a DX2/66 have the same speed outside the CPU, so only the cpu
> section benefits on the DX2. Look at the 68040 on the A3000 and the
> A4000. The 040 is a faster CPU than the 030, but the 030 can write to the
> chipram and zorro buses faster. You have to differentiate between CPU
> benchmarks, and system benchmarks.
Sounds reasonable. But what is a CPU without RAM like? Maybe car without
engine or transmission. However, Dhrystone is much more alike some
standard application than a plain CPU benchmark is. But tell that to
someone who does not know about this fact and who is going to buy a
PeeZee the very next moment. You have to be faaast.
--
MATTHIAS ANDREE
PGP public key available upon request
Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support it for life.
Fabio Bizzetti
>Maybe iCOMP is a CPU benchmark, and Dhrystone is a CPU/Memory benchmark.
>A DX33 and a DX2/66 have the same speed outside the CPU, so only the cpu
>section benefits on the DX2. Look at the 68040 on the A3000 and the
>A4000. The 040 is a faster CPU than the 030, but the 030 can write to the
>chipram and zorro buses faster. You have to differentiate between CPU
>benchmarks, and system benchmarks.
>John Sheehy <jsh...@netcom.com>
The 68040 isn't "worse" than 68030 in memory access times, the problem is the
A4000/040 standard CPU board.
Some memory test results:
A4000/040 25Mhz (standard CPU board)
BusSpeedTest 0.07 (mlelstv) Buffer: 16384 Bytes
==================================================
loop overhead: 5.4ns
register move: 39.0ns
memtype op cycle bandwidth
fast readw 155.2ns 12.9MByte/s
fast readl 307.9ns 13.0MByte/s
fast readm 304.7ns 13.1MByte/s
fast writew 284.6ns 7.0MByte/s
fast writel 572.2ns 7.0MByte/s
fast writem 569.5ns 7.0MByte/s
chip readw 1053.2ns 1.9MByte/s
chip readl 1054.0ns 3.8MByte/s
chip readm 1054.0ns 3.8MByte/s
chip writew 1052.9ns 1.9MByte/s
chip writel 1052.3ns 3.8MByte/s
chip writem 1052.2ns 3.8MByte/s
Thanks to Grypas's kind permission ;-)
and, Blizzard1260 50Mhz, 60ns Ram:
BusSpeedTest 0.07 (mlelstv) Buffer: 16384 Bytes
==================================================
loop overhead: 0.8ns
register move: 15.5ns
memtype op cycle bandwidth
fast readw 51.4ns 38.9MByte/s
fast readl 79.8ns 50.1MByte/s
fast readm 83.3ns 48.0MByte/s
fast writew 64.7ns 30.9MByte/s
fast writel 114.3ns 35.0MByte/s
fast writem 123.1ns 32.5MByte/s
chip readw 899.5ns 2.2MByte/s
chip readl 899.4ns 4.4MByte/s
chip readm 899.6ns 4.4MByte/s
chip writew 899.4ns 2.2MByte/s
chip writel 899.5ns 4.4MByte/s
chip writem 899.6ns 4.4MByte/s
rom readw 52.0ns 38.5MByte/s
rom readl 78.5ns 50.9MByte/s
rom readm 83.8ns 47.7MByte/s
now a Blizzard1230-IV :)
BusSpeedTest 0.07 (mlelstv) Buffer: 16384 Bytes
==================================================
loop overhead: 4.6ns
register move: 40.8ns
memtype op cycle bandwidth
fast readw 163.8ns 12.2MByte/s
fast readl 164.1ns 24.4MByte/s
fast readm 151.2ns 26.4MByte/s
fast writew 120.5ns 16.6MByte/s
fast writel 121.2ns 33.0MByte/s
fast writem 125.8ns 31.8MByte/s
chip readw 892.3ns 2.2MByte/s
chip readl 892.2ns 4.5MByte/s
chip readm 633.2ns 6.3MByte/s
chip writew 571.1ns 3.5MByte/s
chip writel 570.9ns 7.0MByte/s
chip writem 571.1ns 7.0MByte/s
and now a TQM-1250!!! =) (a 68030 50Mhz board diffused in Italy):
BusSpeedTest 0.07 (mlelstv) Buffer: 16384 Bytes
==================================================
loop overhead: 4.6ns
register move: 41.1ns
memtype op cycle bandwidth
fast readw 187.5ns 10.7MByte/s
fast readl 187.4ns 21.3MByte/s
fast readm 157.0ns 25.5MByte/s
fast writew 143.3ns 14.0MByte/s
fast writel 143.7ns 27.8MByte/s
fast writem 131.4ns 30.4MByte/s
chip readw 897.8ns 2.2MByte/s
chip readl 898.4ns 4.5MByte/s
chip readm 740.1ns 5.4MByte/s
chip writew 898.0ns 2.2MByte/s
chip writel 897.7ns 4.5MByte/s
chip writem 716.7ns 5.6MByte/s
well, I ran out of boards ;)
my conclusion is that if all boards had the ChipMem access of Blizzard1230-IV,
then things would be better. The A4000/040 standard CPU board is *SLOW* :-(
I makes the 68040 a wasted µprocessor.
Please note that all tests, besides A4000 one, have been made using a PAL
screen, 1 bitplane. The A4000 test has been made with Multiscan mode, I dont
know which color deep.
HejDå
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Stop that fucking imperialist embargo against Cuba. |
| Hasta Siempre Comandante Che Guevara. |
| |
| |
| Fabio "Maverick" Bizzetti - bizz...@mbox.vol.it - Maverick* at IRC |
| The maker of "CyberMan" and "Virtual Karting" |
| working on "Virtual Rally" and "StarFighter", the 3D game that will |
| bring the Amiga to the top |
| |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mis...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
>>better at graphics, (though to be fair, their are very few _games_ which
>>currantly take advantage of the power.) Anyway, this is irrelevant, as well
>>as consoles being limited to only games, the problem is that they only shine
>>for a few months and then you're stuck with a dated system.
>
Yep - 6 months down the track with a PC, you don't need to buy a new one, you
just upgrade it, and unlike a console, your existing software purchases will
still work with the new one. While I'm an Amiga user, I do like being able to
double the power of my PC each year for roughly the same, small, amount. This
is difficult to do with a Mac or Amiga, and impossible with a console (though
the 3do might prove an exception...)
>
> A little while ago my father bought a Pentium 60 and was told that this
> was an awesome machine... Now the machine is about as awesome as my 6 speed bike
> :)
I wouldn't have it any other way - On with technology! :-)
BTW - any replies to email - I don't like to perpetuate off-topic threads :)
Tom Kennedy
: Where're the plug-ins?
Oh... AMosaic had that. Old news, folks. (No need to mention it
again...)
: Where's the ability to call other programs to add features?
Old news as well.
Even old AMosaic can use DataTypes (which gives yoy the ability to
display any picture that you have a DataType for -- ditto for sound).
And you "call other programs to add features" with ARexx. (Such as the
ARexx script that adds image caching to AMosaic.)
David, you're just forgetting some of the Amiga's old strengths :)
(which the writters of the IBrowse FAQ take for granted)
Tom Kennedy
Bill Near
Yeah, well some of us have local Amiga dealers. There are
also many new Amiga dealerships in the US, not necessarily
Amiga-only.
If you don't have a local dealer then you can dial any of
several 1-800 numbers and order Amiga software. Real
difficult.
David Corn
>i'll keep with the "no offense" tradition and start by asking, are you comparing an Amiga to a
>PC?? boy you are a making a mistake and a BIG one cuz the amiga was and still is multimedia
>oriented more than any other personal computer and especially when it comes to the PC. in the
>PC everything has to have some CPU intervention while in the Amiga the CPU doesn't even handle
>a byte when it's related to graphics display, there are advanced support chips reponsible for
Oh please! Why do you think Amiga users are running to buy real
graphics cards based on technology from last year's PC cards? Amiga
graphics and the 'custom chipset' stinks.
>relieving the CPU of such tasks and thus true multitasking is very much possible on the amiga
>than on the PC. the PC centrelises everything around the CPU and thus the CPU is more busy
>doing housekeeping jobs than actual processing while 60Mhz Amiga can run better than a P120 on
>most conditions. the PC is decades behind the Amiga and when PowerAmiga comes to the scene,
Run better? Define "run better" please. ... DECADES? :)
>hell you'll be ancient history, something to remember the old days when the computers were
>being developed, believe me no Amiga owner was ever dissapointed s/he bought the machine, try
>working even with a basic A500 and see the difference and don't compare the 2 machince by thier
>software support cuz that ain't a good measure, try running some benchmarks on a PC and an
>Amiga and you'll see the difference.
I think most people DO realize - that's why Commodore is no longer
with us. Paying a premium for slower, older technology is foolish.
Harold Klink
>Oh please! Why do you think Amiga users are running to buy real
>graphics cards based on technology from last year's PC cards? Amiga
>graphics and the 'custom chipset' stinks.
Comapred to what I've seen on a peecee (with those so called fancy gfx
cards and that so called fancy os of yours called winfuckshit'95.....No,
then it absolutely doesn't suck!)
>Run better? Define "run better" please. ... DECADES? :)
run better="amiga"
run worse="peecee"
Nice defenition huh?! And you know what?! It's even true.....
>I think most people DO realize - that's why Commodore is no longer
>with us. Paying a premium for slower, older technology is foolish.
If it's working the way you want (read: better than peecee), it's a good
deal. And since it does that, it's a good deal. C'est simple!
Harold. (peecee sucks, wether you like that or not! fact!)
Alan L.M. Buxey
: minute Amiga users say "We don't need fast processors" and the next minute
: you're bragging about Vapor-PowerAmiga.
bragging? no, we are simply able to throw the sad "Your CPU isnt fast"
argument straight back at last.
: Right/ What Web Browser for the Amiga supports frames, JavaScript, Java,
: ShockWave, RealAudio, a VRML broswer, cookies, and the myriad of other
: Netscape plug-ins.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exactly......the browser has many hacks that allow it to do
this.....Netscape doesnt do it.
: You're comparing Quake and Nascar to Worms? Why would anyone care about
: either a 386 or an a500? They are both old and outdated. What
: difference does it make when people are buying $1100 PowerMacs and
: Pentium systems?
not everyone is buying those systems for a start.....the user base is
still 486's in the main. And quake isnt even out, so stop trying to use
it as an argument. Fact is, game for game, the Amiga actually NEEDS less
resources to do the same job.
: You're bragging about this? For $1300 you can get a PowerMac 6116 with
: 8Megs of RAM, a 500Mb Hard Drive, a good quality 14" monitor, a modem, a CD-ROM
: drive, and loads of software
"quality" and " 14" " are not designed to go into the same sentence.
and so what about LOADS of software? most of it will be pack-in crap
that you'll never run more than once. and the modem will be an outdated
14.4 that probably succeeds more 12000 connections than 14400.
: get a dx/2-66 with all of the hardware you named for less than $1300 and
: you would have a much faster system. Just look in Computer Shopper
: sometimes.
faster CPU, not faster system.
: A dx/2-66 doesn't creep along at all. But if a dx/2-66 creeps, an Amiga
: must run backwards.
it runs back whilst going forwards.....multitasking you know ;)
alan
--
- (c) Alan Postings Ltd - A division of Alans(tm) Corporate body(tm) :-)
Date: Fri Mar 15 13:36:25 GMT 1996 Issue:01/00/00 NOT to be carried on M.S.N.!
** Confidential! ** {begin 644 address.txt} [1mWork it out... [0m
{D:'1T<#HO+W=W=RYS=7-S97@N86,N=6LO57-E<G,O:V-C:3$*}{ end}Replies Appreciated :)
Alan L.M. Buxey
: really suck with a few exceptions. They are still trying to come up
: with a decent DOOM clone, while that game is old news to PC's. In
if a game is developed in secret, then released to take the platform by
storm, then you cant expect a similar game on a different platform of
such hitech level to be made overnight.
expecially since there are no 50+ game coder groups for the Amiga.
now, not only did a whole new technique have to be devised to make 3D
texture mapped games, but also, a technique to make the required
chunky-planar work fast....this took time - and back then everyone said
the "wolfenstein" games couldnt be done..
they have been, and are MUCH better than wolf ever was
play Gloom Deluxe on bare A1200 v's Wolf on DX2-66 486 ;)
now, there are DOOM games available, and Breed 3D II is IMHO much better
than DOOM I/II the atmosphere is better, the gfx are better....th
playability is better.
: addition many Amiga games did not even allow you to install to
: hardrive which meant lots of irritating disk swapping and an eternity
not now......blame that on the coders mentallity of what a hacker/pirate
can/cant do.
FACT: they can remove ANY copy protection of ANY sort.
: stock A500 as well. You can argue until the cows come home about which
not any more [games devloped for base A500]
: system is better. The truth is multitasking doesn't do me much good if
: I have no programs with which to do it. I will be more than happy to
true multitasking is AVAILABLE, THAT is the idea. whether or not you
take over the system (and ever hand it back.. ;) ) is up to individual
coders and some can merit their reasons, others cant....
A lot of good games multitask, and even better ones with fast action
allow you to take over the syetm and "sleep" the game to quickly get
back to WB.
: say is that the main function of a computer is to run software. You
: can have the fastest system and best OS around but if you ain't got
: shit to run on it, then it might as well be a paperweight.
BeBox anyone? ;)
Alan L.M. Buxey
: time, from servers in their RS/6000 line to a couple portables. Motorola
: has been shipping PPC Win NT machines for a long time now, too. Of
: course, these aren't "IBM PC's" in the sense of Windows clones, but they
: are out there.
you know that the statement is meant as
there will not be IBM-PC/Windows 95 compatible PPC chips made.
Patrick Leung
: Karl Thomas posted the following:
: : You're bragging about this? For $1300 you can get a PowerMac 6116 with
: : drive, and loads of software
: "quality" and " 14" " are not designed to go into the same sentence.
: and so what about LOADS of software? most of it will be pack-in crap
: that you'll never run more than once. and the modem will be an outdated
: 14.4 that probably succeeds more 12000 connections than 14400.
;-)) This reminds me of my .signature. It has a quote from a Commodore ad
which sums everything well. "It's not how little you pay. It's how much
you get."
: : get a dx/2-66 with all of the hardware you named for less than $1300 and
: : you would have a much faster system. Just look in Computer Shopper
: : sometimes.
: faster CPU, not faster system.
Yes. I agree. I think it is safe to say that the majority of PeeCee
people run one of Bill's girlfriends: Mi$$ DO$, Mi$$ Window$, and Mi$$ NT.
All three of them are very resouce intensive, and wasteful. They'll clear
out your wallet in no time, and drain out of your resources.
While you're busy playing with one of Bill's girlfriends, Bill sneeks
behind your back, steals your car keys, home keys, checkbook, credit cards,
cash... you get the idea--
Patrick Leung | "It's not how little you pay.
ple...@acsu.buffalo.edu | It's how much you get."
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~pleung | -- Commodore --
TOMMY K. HWANG
> not everyone is buying those systems for a start.....the user base is
> still 486's in the main. And quake isnt even out, so stop trying to use
Eventhough I am Amiga user... I have to say something here. From
my personal experience (little there are) and what is selling... It seems
to me that the user base is now Pentiums, but using sad I/O ports and harddrives
that makes them essentially slower than a well equipped 486 system.
Steve Koren
Avi Lev <av...@sapiens.com> wrote:
[ I took the liberty of reformating your text to 72 columns from 95 ]
> are you comparing an Amiga to a PC?? boy you are a making a mistake
I was contradicting your claim that Amiga graphics card resolutions
"cannot be imagined by PCs" by saying that the chipsets in amiga
graphics cards were developed >for< PCs, which in many cases have newer
and faster chips. That's all - no more, no less. :-)
> especially when it comes to the PC. in the PC everything has to have
> some CPU intervention while in the Amiga the CPU doesn't even handle a
> byte when it's related to graphics display,
Not quite. The PC and the Amiga are very similar in this regard. The
PC graphics cards do on-card bitblts and whatnot just as the Amiga ones
do. Also, it is not correct to say that the "the CPU doesn't even
handle a byte...". There is a fair amount of stuff that goes on at the
API level before the graphics card performs an operation. This may be a
little or a lot depending on the operation in question. It is hardly
correct to say the CPU does nothing. At the very least there are
gfx.library stub routines involved that are executed by the CPU.
I haven't directly done the comparison, but it would not surprise me if
in many cases the PC APIs had less overhead (comparing both systems with
gfx cards), since the Amiga graphics APIs were designed for ECS, and may
not have been optimized for things like S3.
> there are advanced support chips reponsible for relieving the CPU of
> such tasks and thus true multitasking is very much possible on the
> amiga than on the PC.
This is a function of the OS, not the hardware. The PCs have higher end
hardware in almost all cases, often by a large margin.
> the PC is decades behind the Amiga and when PowerAmiga comes to the
> scene, hell you'll be ancient history, something to remember the old
> days when the computers were being developed, believe me no Amiga
> owner was ever dissapointed s/he bought the machine, try working even
> with a basic A500 and see the difference and don't compare the 2
> machince by thier software support cuz that ain't a good measure, try
> running some benchmarks on a PC and an Amiga and you'll see the
> difference.
That's an impressive sentence.
I couldn't quite decipher what you meant here, but I believe you are
saying that I should try working with an A500. I've never owned a basic
A500, but I have owned an A1000 (since the first few weeks you could get
them), two A2000s, and current use an A4000 with a Cybergfx card.
Although I own a PC, I use exclusively the 4000 for personal day to day
use and have written a fair amount of Amiga software, so I'm at least a
little bit familiar with how they work. Your misconceptions are very
popular ones, however. Many Amiga people believe that all graphics
operations on PCs are done exclusively by the CPU, but it isn't so.
- steve
Mike Noreen
(a lot of intelligent stuff wrt Amiga/PC pros and cons deleted)
SRM> BOTTOM LINE: The PC isn't as bad as it was about 3 years ago and if
SRM> they ever do something RIGHT with the OS, they very well might push the
SRM> Amiga right off the ledge. PC is a great gaming and internet box, but
SRM> still leaves a lot to be desired in the OS. The Amiga is the ultimate
SRM> power home box with extreme versatility but is getting old and no one
SRM> seems to want to reach out and help it (users included). Expensive to
SRM> get into, but cheaper to 'maintain'.
Well said. Couldn't have said it better myself. However the problem with
taking a well thought-out, well founded and well balanced view in a
polarized issue such as this is that both sides will attack you. Prepare
thyself for the onslaught of irate Marcbarrettians.
Nathanael J Henderson
: PROS: The best damn OS every created (3.1). The ONLY machine that
: still truly multitasks for under $10K. It is the most versatile machine
Uh....aren't you forgetting Unix? OS/2? Even Winblows 95 to some degree?
Heck, you can set up a reasonable Linux box for a couple hundred dollars.
----
"I was practically naked, dressed as a dominatrix and was slapping the
audience with this huge rubber dick I was carrying. (Bill Gates)
wandered by, so I started screaming 'Serve Me! Serve Me!' and put the
dick on his shoulder--at which point, he emitted a mouse-like squeal and
ran away. It was quite a scene." Slymenstra (GWAR)
David Corn
wrote:
>Perhaps that's why Pentia still have bugs?!
They do? What?
>Get real, Intel sucks! Why do you think they "use special compilers"
>and admit they cheated on the benchmark results?! Yes, they ADMITTED THAT
>THEMSELVES!
Err....you'd rather they just kept it to themself? Harold, it might
suprise you to note that there are lots of chips with bugs in them.
It's nothing new or unusual.