Why I am so sad ... The amiga story of the editor of AM
Jernej Pecjak
Here I am taking this opportunity to say I word or two on amiga. I've been
silent, just listening to other people. I decided I need to have my word now.
As I see it, Amiga is really dying. It's not dead, but dying, a slow and
horrible death. I am observing the market for 10 years now and things are
definitely going on the worse side. Yes, one good thing for amiga happens and 2
bad things and we usually forget about the bad ones. Proggrams have improved a
lot and we now have many great programs that have not existed before. But seems
all like an illusion.
Users are abbandoning our machine. One now, one tommorow. There are less and
less people who read amiga magazines results of what we see - many magazines
ceased to exist, all of them have a lot less circulation figures than before.
Let me just briefely tell you a few of my examples:
Once a king on amiga programs, Scala is now concentrating on PC. In fact, it
doesn't help Amiga in any way any more, does not fix bugs etc. The only thing
left for it to do (which it will not I guess) is to put Scala in PD. There are
many serious bugs in it (for one, our fonts are almost unusable in Scala 300
and 400) and nobody will fix them. Their PC Scala need even their own OS, which
shows in what state PC is, but we can not use it, can we?
Digita's wordworth was once a pride and joy to use, but more and more it seems
they took almost all the programmers to work on PC versions of their products.
WW 6 was just a small upgrade, nobody has even touched font engine till 3.0
(engine doesn't support not standard adobe fonts), bugs aren't fixed etc. I hope
they don't dissapear from amiga market in whole.
Softwood: I don't know what happened to them, they seem to work on Final Writer
still, but since I live in Europe, I have no real feedback. Their WWW page is
dead as far as I am concerned, Final Calc 2 is vapor, Final Data 3 is vapor.
Again, I hope they don't dissapear.
Octamed, a fine program is now in it's last incarnation for amiga. Author will
develop it further on PC. Nuff said.
Lightwave, well, I fear no new versions will be produced as the amiga version is
now way behind PC one. If they make a 3D engine for CV3D I will be gladly
surprised.
Gfx cards: Well, I still see both CV3D and Picasso IV a major dissapointment.
The first is slower than CV64, has no application that uses 3D on top of that it
doesn't have pass through and no scan doubler at the moment. I wouldn't exchange
it for my CV64. Picasso IV is I guess a fine product, but Picasso 96 still needs
time to be stable and works with more applications (it doesn't for example work
with Wordworth). As both companies are now in dispute, there will be no CG3 for
Picasso IV, so... After 6 months Picasso 96 will be able to stand by CG3, but
today it can't. I don't say their programmers are more skilled, because I
remember how long CG2 was unstable. It is good the last few months (maybe 6).
Amiga shopper died :((
Amiga Power died :((
Pro Page died :((
Imagine 5 is alive and the company is urging people to buy it for only 100$.
Supports CG and has Arexx. I plea to everybody to buy it if it suits your needs.
Games market is dead. People who have amiga only for playing are either gone to
PC or will go there. Games like Warcraft II or Phantasmagoria are new kind of
games. People who love it will not find it on amiga. We do have many good games,
but not CD ones. Games market is weaker and weaker.
Now you all must flame me for making bad news here. You now expect me to say: So
I am gone to PC or whatever like some other letters like this. Well, no, I am
not. There are 2 reasons for that:
1. I like where I am
2. I have nowhere to go
What makes me sad is looking at my lovely computer market dissapearing in ashes.
Amiga can do everything for me. On top of that, modern PC's are still bad and
even becomming worse. The best sentance to describe them is:
Amiga is my tool, on PC I am it's slave.
PC is a monster machine. It's so hungry for resources I can not tell you. It
takes 32Mb for granted and my wallet does not. YOu need a degree in science to
be able to understand all thoose niffty appliations which you need just 10% of
their power (or bugs).
I cry if I can not use screens. PC i like having all your programs open on
Workbench. It is to cry!
The only thing PC has it has 1000 and 1000 of people making something and they
set standards :(( Unfortunate. Programmers on amiga are magicians. I really
think so. People like Oliver Wagner and author of Aweb combating the thousants
of programmers and money resources from Microsoft (Explorer) must be magical
workers. Why? Because let's say Voyager is not so much inferior from Explorer
(wait, no flames, I don't need those niffty stuff in Navigator, I need to view
Information not play cards with it). I think one people from MS could not make
something like Voyager.
Market here of us who are staying is incredible. I really mean so. There are so
few of Amiga programmers compared to machinery of Microsoft world, that we
really do wonders. They still don't have a good IRC program, nor anything like
Thor. Hack, they even not have something like Dir Work or Opus. Man, I can not
work on a computer so wierd!
I am not interested for most things about the MHZ speed. I care about
productivity work. Once I was force to use Word for some customer showed me that
I spent more time going through bugs than preparing a book on it.
This is OK for today, but in few years time, we will be lost if nothing happens
with machine. THe sad thing is, it has (or had) such a potential. PC is still
crap, tell me what you like, everybody migrating from amiga misses a lot of it's
functions he doesn't have now. PC is good if I need it to play a game. If I
needed only that, I would buy one. I really would.
Mac is a joke of itself. No CLI, no windows... Oh well. Still much better than
PC imho.
Anybody who will leave amiga will need to regret it. AMiga is something that
people have nostalgic feelings about, like ZX Spectrum or C64 was. Man I like
every morning looking at aminet, how many new great things are waiting there
every day for me. I wouldn't have AMinet on PC.
Aminet is really a piece of work. I am really very proud of it. Shows that amiga
programmers are really a bunch of dedicated people.
I do hate Microsoft. It's ignorance toward the others is unbelievable. I wish
some day they die, long and horrible death. Some better computer should be in
every home, not PC. In fact, PC is not so bad, just Windows is.
So why am I sad? Becasue if the things will continue the way they do now, the
day will come, when even I will have to change my computer for something that is
set standard. I am sad that the amiga suffering is continuing in it's 4th year.
Commodore, Escom, Viscorp, etc... This is really too much. Judges are just
waiting for everything to loose it's value or not? I know this is complicated
Judge stuff, but anyway: 4 years of waiting. Now they tell me 28th of February.
I can not even smile any more...
I don't care waht happens to amiga, if Phase 5 succeds with A/BOX or pOS or
whatever. I just want something to happen NOW. In the state amiga is in (with no
real owner for 4 years), it is very alive. When I see Voyager, Thor, Draw
Studio, Pagestream 3.2, Final Writer 5 and all the other programs I see it is
really a miracle. No other computer platform would achieve that! No way! I even
feel that less and less people are migrating now from amiga. I guess the one who
stayed are made of tough steel.
So enough of my little babbling. I have to go working on DTp and WWW pages, with
amiga of course. I do have many wishes, but here's only one: People stay
together, do not sell the machine because even on the other side, the rivers are
still black. Programmers remember: Even though the market may be small, PC
market is too big, you'll be just floating ducks there. On amiga you can do
something people like and say: great job, XY, on PC people only say: oh, no,
again 1000 new functions we will never need. Maybe it is better to be the first
in the smaller group than the last in the biggest.
And finally - thank to all the helping people who helped me before and are
helping me now. Without you I don't know how I could manage to keep the spirit
up here in the small Alpine coutry called Slovenia where Amigas are endanered
species. If you are a publisher and have anything to review, write us a note,
I'll love to review it.
Thanks to all the helpfull people with their advices. I have yet to see a PC
company helping it's users as much as let say Softlogik does.
My last wish would be that Michael Pelt as soon as possible free hiw excelent
filesystem AFS from FLD right and release the 3.0 version. This is one of the
best pieces of programming I've ever seen.
At the really last, I ask publishers to still have faith in Amiga. They make a
lot of people happy...
And to the people who tell the destiny of amiga by making law: Let it go.
Please, let it go. Free the spirit once again. Don't let it die. Do you hear,
lawyers?
Well, that's all. Thank you for listening.
Yours
Jernej
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mails: jernej...@kiss.uni-lj.si
futur...@mrak.si
Editor of Amiga Master, The Only Slovenian amiga magazine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Running: A4000, 060/50Mhz, 1.7Gb Hard disk, Samsung 17" monitor,32Mb RAM
System alert: Although I have 32 Mb RAM, I am not connected to Microsoft
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK WWW AT: http://wet.kiss.uni-lj.si/~k4ff0030 !!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Meyer
In <9859.6983...@guest.arnes.si>, Jernej Pecjak <vid.p...@guest.arnes.si> wrote:
> Now you all must flame me for making bad news here. You now expect me to say: So
> I am gone to PC or whatever like some other letters like this. Well, no, I am
> not. There are 2 reasons for that:
>
> 1. I like where I am
> 2. I have nowhere to go
I understand that completely. I have a Win95 because there are
applications that ONLY run on it (no Mac support, even) that I need.
The more I use it, the more I hate it. I'm seriously considering
fixing things so that I can use it as a server over the internet from
my Amiga.
> Mac is a joke of itself. No CLI, no windows... Oh well. Still much better than
> PC imho.
Yeah, it's better than a PC. But if I've got to use something that
bad, I'll go ahead and get a windows box - because that's where all
the software is.
You can read the first draft of what I went through in looking for a
replacment for my venerable Amiga at <URL:
http://www.phone.net/home/mwm/workstations/ >. Basically, *nothing*
on the market today is up to my standards - they all fall short in
some manner.
A Mac with a real OS - NeXTStep - would seem to fill the bill. I'm
sorry to say that that changed my mind; I was going to go buy the
rockingest Amiga I could find and hope that something better emerged
before it got to the point where the clock battery was failing (sure
sign that you need to buy a new computer). With the possibility of
Next on the Mac on the horizon, I changed my mind and decided to wait
a bit instead (and bought the rockingest car I could fit in :-).
In an ideal world. the lemmings will wake up and we'll see a
resurgence of multitasking systems with a well-designed OS on the
market, and I'll be able to buy an upgraded amiga at commodity
hardware prices (yeah, right :-). The Amiga making any kind of
comeback would be nice. Apple surviving long enough to get the
Mac/NeXTStep box on the market will do...
> I do hate Microsoft. It's ignorance toward the others is unbelievable.
I'm sorry, but I don't think MicroSoft is ignorant. They just don't
worry about anything that doesn't hurt their sales. The Mac started
hurting their sales, so they took four tries to get an OS on the
market that was "good enough" that people didn't switch to the Mac.
And that's what MS sells - software thats "good enough" for the mass
market. Once you've gotten used to better things, it isn't any more.
But good enough is the enemy of the best - and stronger than at that.
<mike
--
Do NOT reply to the address in the From: header. Reply to
m...@contessa.phone.net instead. You have been warned. Sending
unsoliticed email I consider commercial gives me permission to
subscribe you to a mail list of my choice.
Robert J Goos
Jernej Pecjak (vid.p...@guest.arnes.si) wrote:
: Here I am taking this opportunity to say I word or two on amiga. I've been
: silent, just listening to other people. I decided I need to have my word now.
There's nothing pretty about a soul in anguish...
John Gregor
In a previous article, vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) says:
>I cry if I can not use screens. PC i like having all your programs open on
>Workbench. It is to cry!
There are plenty of screen managers for the PC, which are more memory
efficient than the Amiga screens since they do not need to hold the entire
non-visible screen bitmap in memory. So it is feasable to have many more
screens open, and the managers also allow things like dragging windows
between the screens, which cannot be done on the Amiga.
Really, people complaining about the PC should learn a little about it,
because 99.9% of the complaints are simply not true. Most of the time there
are *more* powerful solutions than what you're used to on an aging OS.
Learn about them.
>So why am I sad? Becasue if the things will continue the way they do now, the
>day will come, when even I will have to change my computer for something that is
>set standard. I am sad that the amiga suffering is continuing in it's 4th year.
It is quite simple. People buy computers that: 1) give good performance
for the dollar, 2) run popular applications, 3) have software, parts, and
service available anywhere, and 4) are supported by the industry. The
Amiga is none of those, so the buying public put its money into system that
were. If the Amiga had been those things, it could have been successful as
well. It wasn't, so it wasn't. Concepts like software support, and
price/performance may not mean anything to Amiga people, but they do to
the rest of the world. You can't sell computers without it.
>And to the people who tell the destiny of amiga by making law: Let it go.
>Please, let it go. Free the spirit once again. Don't let it die. Do you hear,
>lawyers?
I'm sure they will, in just 2 more weeks, same as 3 years ago.
J
tim
>In a previous article, vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) says:
>>I cry if I can not use screens. PC i like having all your programs open on
>>Workbench. It is to cry!
>There are plenty of screen managers for the PC, which are more memory
>efficient than the Amiga screens since they do not need to hold the entire
>non-visible screen bitmap in memory. So it is feasable to have many more
>screens open, and the managers also allow things like dragging windows
>between the screens, which cannot be done on the Amiga.
>Really, people complaining about the PC should learn a little about it,
>because 99.9% of the complaints are simply not true. Most of the time there
>are *more* powerful solutions than what you're used to on an aging OS.
>Learn about them.
Learn to live with the fact that not everyone wants to come home to Win95 and
'intel inside'. After spending all day on PowerMacs and P200's I'd hate to come
home to that my friend :) The point is, most Amiga users left now *DO* know
what they need to know about the PC - i.e. it's crap. It's really that simple.
I'd dont appreciate a system that requires enourmous resources to do simple
things that can be done by a much lower powered Amiga. Fine - there are screen
managers for the PC :) WOW! Isn't that innovative!!! Someone wrote another
piece of software to kludge Windoze into being 'user friendly'. The Amiga
doen't need a 'screen manager' since it's built into the OS, and if we wanted to
move windows between screens (which you can do either by public screen promotion
or a 'jump screens' utility) someone would write a commodity to do it, post it
on the Aminet and we'd all use it for FREE :)
May I suggest that you LEARN about the Amiga ?
>>So why am I sad? Becasue if the things will continue the way they do now,
>>the day will come, when even I will have to change my computer for something
>>that is set standard. I am sad that the amiga suffering is continuing in
>>it's 4th year.
>It is quite simple. People buy computers that: 1) give good performance
>for the dollar, 2) run popular applications, 3) have software, parts, and
>service available anywhere, and 4) are supported by the industry. The
>Amiga is none of those, so the buying public put its money into system that
>were. If the Amiga had been those things, it could have been successful as
>well. It wasn't, so it wasn't. Concepts like software support, and
>price/performance may not mean anything to Amiga people, but they do to
>the rest of the world. You can't sell computers without it.
You're quite wilful with your views of Amiga users aren't you? Of course we
*SMALL MINDED AMIGA USERS* don't *UNDERSTAND* your concepts! Jeez.. A hell of a
lot of us are computing professionals and understand the esoeterics of the
computer market only too well! If there wasn't room for an Amiga or any form of
independant computing then why are all these companies a: bidding for the
technology and b: expanding on the concept for future machines (e.g. Phase5's
A\Box or PIOS' PIOS ONE) ? Performance means a lot to someone like myself, and
an Amiga delivers than like no PC can or ever will. Sorry if you have a problem
with that but thats the truth.
Support for the Amiga is stronger now than 2 years ago, third party hardware
availability is quite incredible now. I can run 'popular apps' via
Shapeshifter, PCX and so forth.. Not that i'd want to - since there are some
fine Amiga equivilents that I prefer (my choice, not YOURS). The introduction
of PPC will only increase this, making emulation of machines like the Mac and PC
damn fast and so ownership of them unecessary.
If I really thought the Amiga was a 'dead' ideal I wouldn't spend my limited
money on it, and I object to people telling me that I'm stupid for doing so.
>>And to the people who tell the destiny of amiga by making law: Let it go.
>>Please, let it go. Free the spirit once again. Don't let it die. Do you
>>hear, lawyers?
>I'm sure they will, in just 2 more weeks, same as 3 years ago.
>J
Welcome to the Jungle baby..
Tim
misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> In a previous article, vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) says:
>>So why am I sad? Becasue if the things will continue the way they do now, the
>>day will come, when even I will have to change my computer for something that is
>>set standard. I am sad that the amiga suffering is continuing in it's 4th year.
> It is quite simple. People buy computers that: 1) give good performance
> for the dollar, 2) run popular applications, 3) have software, parts, and
> service available anywhere, and 4) are supported by the industry. The
> Amiga is none of those, so the buying public put its money into system that
> were. If the Amiga had been those things, it could have been successful as
> well. It wasn't, so it wasn't. Concepts like software support, and
> price/performance may not mean anything to Amiga people, but they do to
> the rest of the world. You can't sell computers without it.
The reason the PC is popular is quite simple...
Originally they were cheap, and they were easily expandible, thus they
gained popularity.
Now they are popular, and thus have a large software-base. For these
reasons alone they will continue to prosper.
(And will probably continue to do so, despite their Hardware and OS
failings.)
>>And to the people who tell the destiny of amiga by making law: Let it go.
>>Please, let it go. Free the spirit once again. Don't let it die. Do you hear,
>>lawyers?
> I'm sure they will, in just 2 more weeks, same as 3 years ago.
I fear you are correct here...
though I will remain with my Amiga for now, because I have yet to see an
alternative I like.
And one point I would like to make...
I do not like the bloatedness of Windows for many reasons, this is one:
I know the porpose of every single file on the boot-partition of my
Amiga. And thus have complete confidence in any modificatiios I wish
to make to it. It is a tool over which I have complete control.
I doubt I will ever understand what a significant percentage of the files
in a PC os are for... (and this is -not- through ignorance of it.)
Thus I will always be a slave to it.
Nathan.
(n.w...@student.canterbury.ac.nz)
John Gregor
dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk (tim) wrote:
> if we
> wanted to move windows between screens (which you can do either by public
> screen promotion or a 'jump screens' utility) someone would write a
> commodity to do it, post it on the Aminet and we'd all use it for FREE :)
Umm, your ignorance is charming, but it is clear you know little about the
workings of the Amiga OS. I shall attempt to enlighten you.
There are *some* applications which can be told to close and reopen their
window on another screen. For example, MUI applications can do this, and a
few other isolated ones provide an internal "jump screen" feature.
However, the majority of standard gadtools applications open a window and
internally store this window pointer (and often the associated screen
pointer) inside the application. Any external program (your "jump screens
utility") that closes a program's window behind its back and opens it on
another screen will cause that program to crash the next time the program
uses any graphics calls with the old, now invalid contents of the original
window pointer.
In summary, the *only* way this can be done on the Amiga is for the program
itself to provide the feature, either explicitly, or by using something
like MUI that provides it for you through a level of abstraction on top of
the OS API. But an arbitrary program can *not* do this, because the
external utility would render its screen and window pointers invalid.
Now, contrast this to Windows, where an external source *can* legitimately
control this with no side effects or kludges necessary. This is simply an
architectural limitation of the Amiga OS, and is one of the many
shortcomings that Amiga toolkits like MUI try to solve by providing their
own window open/close APIs on top of the OS one.
"If we wanted to move windows between screens we would do it". No, you
won't. What I posted above is the *reason* there are no such utilities for
generic Amiga programs. If you want to convince me you have *any* clue
what you're talking about, you'll have to explain how, using the
intuition.library APIs, such a utility will solve the internal
window-pointer cache problem for existing applications. Since no one else
has been able to do it, I'll be surprised if you come up with a solution.
But here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. I'm all ears.
> May I suggest that you LEARN about the Amiga ?
May I suggest that *YOU* learn about the Amiga before spouting nonsense?
When you have written as many Amiga programs as I have, and seen as many
internals of various OSs as I have, then come back and we'll talk about the
relative merits of various OS APIs. Until then, you have some learning to
do. Right now you are arguing from a position of ignorance. There is
nothing wrong with that per se, but you need to realize that there are
people in this world who know more about how your computer works than you
do.
> The introduction of PPC will only increase this,
If that ever happens. I wouldn't hold my breath. If it does, I'll buy one,
but I seriously doubt we'll see PPC Amigas even before 2000.
J
tim
>dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk (tim) wrote:
>> if we
>> wanted to move windows between screens (which you can do either by public
>> screen promotion or a 'jump screens' utility) someone would write a
>> commodity to do it, post it on the Aminet and we'd all use it for FREE :)
>Umm, your ignorance is charming, but it is clear you know little about the
>workings of the Amiga OS. I shall attempt to enlighten you.
So kind of you to dain to come down from on high and talk to us, mere mortals.
Still, at least we've got our ego under control :)
>There are *some* applications which can be told to close and reopen their
>window on another screen. For example, MUI applications can do this, and a
>few other isolated ones provide an internal "jump screen" feature.
Yawn..
>However, the majority of standard gadtools applications open a window and
>internally store this window pointer (and often the associated screen
>pointer) inside the application. Any external program (your "jump screens
>utility") that closes a program's window behind its back and opens it on
>another screen will cause that program to crash the next time the program
>uses any graphics calls with the old, now invalid contents of the original
>window pointer.
Zzzzzzzz....
>In summary,
Ever thought about being a Lecturer?
BTW I do *love* the way you are selective in what points you address :)
Still, noone would ask someone who obviously knows *everything* like you to
stoop so low as to answer directly..
> the *only* way this can be done on the Amiga is for the program
>itself to provide the feature, either explicitly, or by using something
>like MUI that provides it for you through a level of abstraction on top of
>the OS API. But an arbitrary program can *not* do this, because the
>external utility would render its screen and window pointers invalid.
>Now, contrast this to Windows, where an external source *can* legitimately
>control this with no side effects or kludges necessary. This is simply an
>architectural limitation of the Amiga OS, and is one of the many
>shortcomings that Amiga toolkits like MUI try to solve by providing their
>own window open/close APIs on top of the OS one.
The true contrast with windows is that it merely is a kluge.. and a perfect
example of how too many programmers can really screw with an OS.
>"If we wanted to move windows between screens we would do it". No, you
>won't. What I posted above is the *reason* there are no such utilities for
>generic Amiga programs. If you want to convince me you have *any* clue
>what you're talking about, you'll have to explain how, using the
>intuition.library APIs, such a utility will solve the internal
>window-pointer cache problem for existing applications. Since no one else
>has been able to do it, I'll be surprised if you come up with a solution.
I don't particulary want to convince you of anything, since you are obviously
beyond all of us in your intellectual skill. But... since your very lightly to
flame me endlessly and call me an 'idiot' i'll let you in on a small secret,
there are currently not one but TWO whole ways in which to get programs to open
their windows on other screens. Now, i'm going to be kind to you - i'll give
you a chance to show *ME* how infinitely clever thou art. Tell me one :) Just
one... Or shall I do alllllllllllllllll the work here ?
>But here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. I'm all ears.
Oh pleeaaaassee... are you taking too many multi vitamins? Looks like you don't
like being caught out ;)
Why can't I simply evade 80% of the original post like you did? Oh, I forgot..
I'm not worthy! <BOW> <STOOP>
>> May I suggest that you LEARN about the Amiga ?
>May I suggest that *YOU* learn about the Amiga before spouting nonsense?
>When you have written as many Amiga programs as I have, and seen as many
>internals of various OSs as I have, then come back and we'll talk about the
>relative merits of various OS APIs. Until then, you have some learning to
>do. Right now you are arguing from a position of ignorance. There is
>nothing wrong with that per se, but you need to realize that there are
>people in this world who know more about how your computer works than you
>do.
"I'm better than you so there!" (Summary of you last paragraph).
Actually, this is all true if you apply it to yourself my friend, since you seem
to steam roller any opposition to your particular point of view. Well versed
discussion I enjoy, but this kind of crap really does no good for anybody.
Especially when you can't even be bothered to do me the service of replying to
all my points. I simply must assume that you do not have the answers, which is
sad, since it's *you* attaching ignorance to my views.
Your original posting illustrated graphically how little you actually know about
the Amiga and it's current situation. Amazing, as I seem to get the impression
you actually own one - perhaps you just hold onto it to prop the door open ?
>> The introduction of PPC will only increase this,
>If that ever happens. I wouldn't hold my breath. If it does, I'll buy one,
>but I seriously doubt we'll see PPC Amigas even before 2000.
Even after Phase5 demonstrated the board pre-xmas ? Even though there is now a
PPC C++ dev tool ? Not even after Village tronic announced research into a PPC
module for the PicassoIV? Your estimate of the year 2000 is either one of born
from irrationality due to your quite obvious anger with myself, or from the
ignorance you seem to posess in abundance ;^)
The worst thing is, i'm sitting here replying to such crap, after recieving
email from Amiga users thanking me for taking you on in the first place. I
regret it now, not from not being able to address your arguements but from not
having the slightest chance in a million of getting through to someone as thick
headed, arrogant and self mollifying as yourself.
If you want to debate the whole issue, starting with a reply to my whole post,
I'll be glad to do so. That is, so long as you can do so without resorting to
childish accusation, insult and infantile behaviour such as you have
demonstrated to this newsgroup.
Do have a *very* nice day, call me from your next therapy session :)
Tim
John Gregor
dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk (tim) wrote:
> there are currently not one but TW0 whole ways in which to get programs
> to open their windows on other screens. Now, i'm going to be kind to you
I'm not talking about making programs "open their windows on other
screens". That's not even close to the original problem, so having two
ways to do it does not even remotely address my argument. Either you
didn't realise that, or realise it and are being evasive. I'm not sure
which.
Now, again, if you have even *one* way to safely force a foreign program to
move an existing open window from one screen to another, do tell me how to
solve the internal window and screen pointer problem. The trouble is, I
don't believe you. I believe you're talking about things you do not
understand, and I called you on it. But I'm quite willing to listen, so be
my guest. I'll appologize (profusely and honestly) for doubting you if you
really do know how to solve this problem. So enlighten me...
> Especially when you can't even be bothered to do me the service of replying to
> all my points.
Ok, I appologize. Here we ago:
> The point is, most Amiga users left now *D0* know
> what they need to know about the PC - i.e. it's crap.
Proof by assertion? I've already pointed out that what many Amiga people
think are limitations of the PC are *not*, and often better solutions are
available.
> I'd dont appreciate a system that requires enourmous resources to do
> simple things that can be done by a much lower powered Amiga.
Ok, valid point. But who cares? If you can get enormously more powerful
hardware for a cheaper price, that seems to be what most people chose.
> May I suggest that you LEARN about the Amiga ?
I think I know quite a lot about it, thank you. The only APIs I have not
used extensively are probably layers.library, and some of the gameport and
lower level hardware interfaces such as battmem.resource and
potgo.resource.
> You're quite wilful with your views of Amiga users aren't you? 0f course we
> *SMALL MINDED AMIGA USERS* don't *UNDERSTAND* your concepts!
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say they didn't understand, I
said that while these things may not be *important* to Amiga users, the
rest of the industry considers items like software support and so on to be
must-have requirements.
> If there wasn't room for an Amiga or any form of
> independant computing then why are all these companies a: bidding for the
> technology and b: expanding on the concept for future machines (e.g. Phase5's
> A\Box or PI0S' PI0S 0NE) ?
a: they've been "bidding on the technology" for how many years now? and b:
do you *really* think you're going to see an A\Box or what have you any
time soon? I had this very same argument 3 years ago. Amiga advocates:
"We're going to get a PPC any month now!" Me: "No, its not that simple.
Don't hold your breath. It takes some time, even if they started today".
I believe who was correct is now clear.
> Performance means a lot to someone like myself, and
> an Amiga delivers than like no PC can or ever will.
Any CPU bound task will be much faster on a modern PC than even a high
end Amiga. Witness LW render times, real time bitmap scaling performance,
and what have you.
> I can run 'popular apps' via Shapeshifter, PCX and so forth..
Sure, but the general public does not want to pay more for a computer
platform than its competitors, and then pay *again* to make it run 68K
(not even PPC) Mac software or essentially toss out the entire system and
put a PC-on-a-card in it. They just buy a faster, more powerful PowerMac
or PC directly. You may personally find it useful, but the general
buying public does not.
> Support for the Amiga is stronger now than 2 years ago,
Err, ok, if you say so. But I don't see it that way.
> If I really thought the Amiga was a 'dead' ideal I wouldn't spend my limited
> money on it,
Beats me. And there's nothing particularly wrong with spending money on a
dead platform. People spend money on classic cars that haven't been made
in many decades. You need not defend that choice. I'm not attacking your
choice, I'm trying to point out (in response to the original post) why the
Amiga is not meeting with mainstream type success, and what it must do if
it wishes to achieve that success.
> Amazing, as I seem to get the impression you actually own one
I own or have owned 4. Yet, I am not blind to PC advantages (I own several).
> Even after Phase5 demonstrated the board pre-xmas ?
Yes. There's quite a lot more to it than that, you know. I'm not talking
about lab prototypes here, I'm talking about real, live shipping systems,
at dealers, that users can buy, and run some native software on. It might
beat out my estimate of Y2000-if-at-all, but we'll see I guess. Again,
I'l buy one, if and when they are available in any meaningful way (defined
as having at least minimal native software support, like WP's, spreadsheets,
emacs, and a few others).
J
John Gregor
vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:
> Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third party
> hacks to have screens is not even worth my words...
It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
J
Hans Guijt
>The worst thing is, i'm sitting here replying to such crap, after recieving
>email from Amiga users thanking me for taking you on in the first place. I
>regret it now, not from not being able to address your arguements but from
>not having the slightest chance in a million of getting through to someone as
>thick headed, arrogant and self mollifying as yourself.
Tim,
you are a master of language. Keep it up! ;-)
Hans
tim
>>The worst thing is, i'm sitting here replying to such crap, after recieving
>>email from Amiga users thanking me for taking you on in the first place. I
>>regret it now, not from not being able to address your arguements but from
>>not having the slightest chance in a million of getting through to someone
>>as thick headed, arrogant and self mollifying as yourself.
>Tim,
>you are a master of language. Keep it up! ;-)
>Hans
Hans,
Thanx but don't - he'll only see it as a personal attack ;)
Tim
tim
>vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:
>J
Oh yes.. you get so many 'features' with Win95 :)
Tim
Pieter-Jan Kuyten
John Gregor wrote:
>
> vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:
>
> > Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third party
> > hacks to have screens is not even worth my words...
>
> It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
> networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
>
> J
I think you also forgot to add the words "in a much more ineffecient
way" at the end of your *does more* statement.
Even with these it should not take a 100 MB for an OS. It's all those
silly anims, sounds, screensavers and more of that sort of malarkee,
that blows Win95 up to that size.
Pieter-Jan Kuyten
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pieter-Jan Kuyten (Kuyte...@cft.philips.nl) |
| |
| Machine Vision Software Designer for Philips CFT |
| (Centre For Manufacturing Technology) |
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Grim
In article <330AEE...@cft.philips.nl>, Kuyte...@cft.philips.nl
says...
> John Gregor wrote:
> >
> > vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:
> >
> > > Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third party
> > > hacks to have screens is not even worth my words...
> >
> > It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
> > networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
> >
> > J
>
> I think you also forgot to add the words "in a much more ineffecient
> way" at the end of your *does more* statement.
>
> Even with these it should not take a 100 MB for an OS. It's all those
> silly anims, sounds, screensavers and more of that sort of malarkee,
> that blows Win95 up to that size.
FYI. Win95 using a "typical" install is only 20MB.
Grim
Paul Yanzick
Grim <gr...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<MPG.d74b1318...@news.mindspring.com>...
Yea, "typical". Nothing at all with it, just the OS, without any
accessories like the calculator or anything like that. Not much of a GUI
if you ask me.
Patrick Sheffield
>> Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third party
>> hacks to have screens is not even worth my words...
>It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
>networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
Now here I must take exception. I do agree that Windows has more features (I'm
not going to get into the value judgement as to whether it /does/ more), but it
does not take up 100+Mb simply because of that. It takes up 100+Mb because it
can. Because of the way it is manufactured. Because it is essentially mass
produced instead of hand crafted.
If you are a software engineer then you know what I am talking about. I'm not
saying that it is a bad way to engineer, clearly it is successful. I am just
making an observation.
Patrick Sheffield
Patrick Sheffield
Grim wrote:
>In article <330AEE...@cft.philips.nl>, Kuyte...@cft.philips.nl
>says...
>> John Gregor wrote:
>> >
>> > vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third par
>> > > hacks to have screens is not even worth my words...
>> >
>> > It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
>> > networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
>> >
>> > J
>>
>> I think you also forgot to add the words "in a much more ineffecient
>> way" at the end of your *does more* statement.
>>
>> Even with these it should not take a 100 MB for an OS. It's all those
>> silly anims, sounds, screensavers and more of that sort of malarkee,
>> that blows Win95 up to that size.
>FYI. Win95 using a "typical" install is only 20MB.
Still, my initial system partition for my A3000 *with* networking and
accessories is only 5.5 Mb. I don't think that W95 provides 4 times the
facilities.
Patrick Sheffield
Grim
In article <01bc1e78$e2170700$2b7c...@yanzickp.dsu.edu>,
yanz...@columbia.dsu.edu says...
> > FYI. Win95 using a "typical" install is only 20MB.
> >
> > Grim
>
>
> Yea, "typical". Nothing at all with it, just the OS, without any
> accessories like the calculator or anything like that. Not much of a GUI
> if you ask me.
>
While I don't really see what the calculator has to do with the GUI --
it is only 0.2 MB in size and you can add it if you like (though I'm
pretty sure it is included in a typical install). There is the ability
for the user to make decisions on which options you want on your
machine. My config is 30 MB and it's hardly stripped down. Still,
it's a far cry from these 100 MB claims...
I believe the "maximum" install is only 70 MB.
Grim
tim
>In article <330AEE...@cft.philips.nl>, Kuyte...@cft.philips.nl
>says...
>> John Gregor wrote:
>> >
>> > vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third
>> >
>> > It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
>> > networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
>> >
>> > J
>>
>> I think you also forgot to add the words "in a much more ineffecient
>> way" at the end of your *does more* statement.
>>
>> Even with these it should not take a 100 MB for an OS. It's all those
>> silly anims, sounds, screensavers and more of that sort of malarkee,
>> that blows Win95 up to that size.
>FYI. Win95 using a "typical" install is only 20MB.
>Grim
With a 'light' 'small' 16MEG KERNEL :)
Tim
Dr. Peter Kittel
In article <5ebmv4$r...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Gregor) writes:
>vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:
>
>> Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third party
>> hacks to have screens is not even worth my words...
>
>It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
>networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
And for those features Win95 needs 100 MB? I'm sure like most people
here that if someone included the same functionality in AmigOS, it
still would come out somewhere around 10 MB or less. Ever seen BeOS?
Ok, it's not yet complete, but working, and takes far less than 10 MB
on disk currently.
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: pet...@pios.de
Th.Huber
In article <5ebmv4$r...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Gregor) writes:
>vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:
>
>> Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third party
>> hacks to have screens is not even worth my words...
>
>It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
>networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
Win95 needs 100MB and 50MB swapspace to do things the Amiga does with
a 10MB harddrive.
(networking ? where is a good TCP for Win ?? only kiddy TCP for lamers !)
Win95 is written that bad, you have to spend a lot of money to get things
working as smooth as the Amiga.
The Amiga has one major disadvantage over Win95:
It lacks those funny requesters about "protection faults" and "unstable systems".
Dave Haynie
On 17 Feb 97 15:15:14 +1200, misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>In article <5e68lq$s...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aq...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Gregor) writes:
>The reason the PC is popular is quite simple...
>Originally they were cheap, and they were easily expandible, thus they
>gained popularity.
Actually, PC were originally very expensive. When you could get an
A1000 for $1200 or so, a PC of the same basic performance level would
run you $4000 or more. PCs caught on first for one reason: Lotus
1-2-3. The spreadsheet was already the primary reason to use a
personal computer in business, and the previous one, VisiCalc, had
just about made the Apple II in business. But large business didn't
trust Apple. They did trust IBM, and the combination of more memory,
16-bit performance, and that $350 math chip you could buy, made the PC
many times faster than the Apple II. And trusted by big business,
which could afford it. And it grew from there.
It's only fairly recently that PClones have become cheap. Even back in
the A3000 days the A3000 was a decent buy, PC makers were still
building very customized computers, etc. Nowdays, there's so much
standardization, most PC makers don't even really make their PCs, they
just buy motherboards from someone else. All the competition in the
market, coupled with very high volumes on the components in these
systems, has driven the prices through the floor, of course, but that
wasn't always the case.
>(And will probably continue to do so, despite their Hardware and OS
>failings.)
Aside from the rather arcane x86 instruction set, there's not much
lacking in PC hardware these days. And even that fairly bogus
architecture isn't all THAT bad when you run it at 200MHz and put a
superscalar RISC engine underneath it all. Pretty much all SCSI and
most EIDE is DMA driven, just like a good Amiga (won't mention that
bastardized IDE on the A4000 -- whoops! I just did). ISA bus is as
dumb as ever, but every year it's less of a factor. And new standards,
like USB and Firewire, are very good. Graphics cards run blits 100x
faster than Amiga blits, have CPU access 20x faster, and many are
doing 3D acceleration.
Basically, if you're having problems with the OS on a PC, and I
certainly do, knowing what's possible on the AmigaOS, IT'S THE OS, NOT
THE HARDWARE. If AmigaOS came out for the x86 PC tomorrow, you'd love
it, and it would seem nothing more than a rockin'-fast Amiga. The main
reason for the PowerPC is that it's faster, cheaper, better for
multiprocessing, and it doesn't have those arcane instructions. But
realize this: the Amiga architecture hasn't significantly advanced in
five years. That's about three generations of computer.
>> I'm sure they will, in just 2 more weeks, same as 3 years ago.
>I fear you are correct here...
>though I will remain with my Amiga for now, because I have yet to see an
>alternative I like.
And based on all of what I said above, take this advice: Never buy
technology before you need it. You get to define "need" of course. But
alternatives are on the way, more will come after that, change is the
only constant in the business. Hopefully this year finds the Amiga
Industry unfrozen at last, if not by a new home for the AmigaOS, then
at least some systems that pass the "acceptable to Amiga users" acid
test. And that, folks, may be part of my job to try to define, but you
all have the ultimate vote.
>I know the porpose of every single file on the boot-partition of my
>Amiga. And thus have complete confidence in any modificatiios I wish
>to make to it. It is a tool over which I have complete control.
This is a major failing of the Microsoft-influenced OSs: Windows,
OS/2, NT, whever. There is just too much "magic" stuff going on. You
understand what happens in Startup-Sequence because, quite simply,
Startup-Sequence is a list of what happens. You can type the same
commands in a shell and, for the most part, get the same effect. Does
anyone REALLY know what happens when you boot Windows 95?
Interestingly, UNIX pretty much does it the Amiga way. So does BeOS.
>I doubt I will ever understand what a significant percentage of the files
>in a PC os are for... (and this is -not- through ignorance of it.)
>Thus I will always be a slave to it.
Microsoft wants you to be their dog.
Dave Haynie V.P. Hardware Engineering PIOS Computer
hay...@pios.de "...no RISC, no fun"
Mike Meyer
In <330bcca1....@hermes.jersey.net>, dha...@jersey.net (Dave Haynie) wrote:
> On 17 Feb 97 15:15:14 +1200, misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> Actually, PC were originally very expensive. When you could get an
> A1000 for $1200 or so, a PC of the same basic performance level would
> run you $4000 or more.
By the time the A1000 came out, the PC already owned the desktop. Yes,
a third-party machine could get press and carve out a market niche,
but that's apparently still true. At least, Be is getting press, and
hopes to carve out a market.
> PCs caught on first for one reason: Lotus 1-2-3.
Nope. It could have been any spreadsheet.
> But large business didn't trust Apple. They did trust IBM,
This is the critical issue - the IBM PC was the first machine from a
vendor that corporate america would trust. It didn't have to be IBM,
it could have been one of the seven dwarfs. A bunch of hippies working
out of garages wouldn't cut it, though.
While the original IBM PC was very expensive compared to other
personal computers of the era (i.e. - $3000 or so vs. $1000), they
were still *MUCH* cheaper than anything else from a "real" computer
company.
IBM underestimated the PC market (250,000) nearly as badly as they
underestimated the mainframe market (12).
> and the combination of more memory, 16-bit performance
Out of an 8088?!?!?!?!?
> Basically, if you're having problems with the OS on a PC, and I
> certainly do, knowing what's possible on the AmigaOS, IT'S THE OS, NOT
> THE HARDWARE.
Yup. Free Unix on PC hardware delivers better performance/dollar than
buying a Sun. Or Windows on the same hardware.
> the Amiga architecture hasn't significantly advanced in
> five years. That's about three generations of computer.
I honestly don't think it makes much difference. The cost benefit of
mass-market commodity hardware is burying the competion. Look at the
Amiga; between it's introduction in 1986 and the A3000 in 1991, it
went from being a factor of four cost to get an equivalent PC to
roughly equivalent (your numbers).
> Industry unfrozen at last, if not by a new home for the AmigaOS, then
> at least some systems that pass the "acceptable to Amiga users" acid
> test. And that, folks, may be part of my job to try to define, but you
> all have the ultimate vote.
Because of the effects mentioned in the previous paragraph, the next
hardware I buy is either going to 1) Run nearly all my Amiga software
as is, or 2) Run on mainstream hardware (Apple or Windows compatable).
If I change to a new system, it's going to be hardware riding the
commodity market price/performance curve.
Since we can't mass-produce software, it doesn't suffer from this
effect. Further, I'm not willing to put up with the crap that Apple
and MicroSoft are peddling now, so there's little choice in the
matter.
I just wish there were a Unix on Intel that had the commercial
software support the Amiga currently has.
> >I know the porpose of every single file on the boot-partition of my
> >Amiga. And thus have complete confidence in any modificatiios I wish
> >to make to it. It is a tool over which I have complete control.
> This is a major failing of the Microsoft-influenced OSs:
But this isn't a failing as far as the market is concerned, it's a
major plus. Your average user doesn't want to konw about all that
stuff; they just want it to work. Having to tweak dozens of small
files - especially when they are PROGRAMS - isn't something users want
to do. Plug-N-Play isn't merely a winning strategy, it's the name of
the game.
> Interestingly, UNIX pretty much does it the Amiga way. So does BeOS.
Which Unix? Unix comes with sufficient documentation to figure things
out, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that inittab
or netstart is any less confusing than a config.sys file. I won't even
mention X resources twice.
<mike
--
Do NOT reply to the address in the From: header. Reply to mwm instead
of bouncenews at the same machine. You have been warned. Sending
tim
Hey! It's Diamond Dave :) Hello :)
>On 17 Feb 97 15:15:14 +1200, misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>>In article <5e68lq$s...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aq...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>>(John Gregor) writes:
>>The reason the PC is popular is quite simple...
>>Originally they were cheap, and they were easily expandible, thus they
>>gained popularity.
>Actually, PC were originally very expensive. When you could get an
>A1000 for $1200 or so, a PC of the same basic performance level would
>run you $4000 or more. PCs caught on first for one reason: Lotus
>1-2-3. The spreadsheet was already the primary reason to use a
>personal computer in business, and the previous one, VisiCalc, had
>just about made the Apple II in business. But large business didn't
>trust Apple. They did trust IBM, and the combination of more memory,
>16-bit performance, and that $350 math chip you could buy, made the PC
>many times faster than the Apple II. And trusted by big business,
>which could afford it. And it grew from there.
There was a hell of a lot of politics in there too - a case of the wrong people
doing deals with the right ones. Of course Commodores lack of vision and
marketing direction did nothing to alleviate this.
>It's only fairly recently that PClones have become cheap. Even back in
>the A3000 days the A3000 was a decent buy, PC makers were still
>building very customized computers, etc. Nowdays, there's so much
>standardization, most PC makers don't even really make their PCs, they
>just buy motherboards from someone else. All the competition in the
>market, coupled with very high volumes on the components in these
>systems, has driven the prices through the floor, of course, but that
>wasn't always the case.
Everybody and their cat is making PC's now - the only real difference (in
general terms) is the badge on the front. With so much competition and so many
companies arriving, expanding and then going under it's an incredibly fast
moving market.
>>(And will probably continue to do so, despite their Hardware and OS
>>failings.)
>Aside from the rather arcane x86 instruction set, there's not much
>lacking in PC hardware these days. And even that fairly bogus
>architecture isn't all THAT bad when you run it at 200MHz and put a
>superscalar RISC engine underneath it all. Pretty much all SCSI and
>most EIDE is DMA driven, just like a good Amiga (won't mention that
>bastardized IDE on the A4000 -- whoops! I just did). ISA bus is as
>dumb as ever, but every year it's less of a factor. And new standards,
>like USB and Firewire, are very good. Graphics cards run blits 100x
>faster than Amiga blits, have CPU access 20x faster, and many are
>doing 3D acceleration.
The A4000 IDE thing must be a sore point with you, since the A3000+ was a much
more promising machine ;)
>Basically, if you're having problems with the OS on a PC, and I
>certainly do, knowing what's possible on the AmigaOS, IT'S THE OS, NOT
>THE HARDWARE. If AmigaOS came out for the x86 PC tomorrow, you'd love
Granted the OS (Win) does provide most of the problems with the PC but the
architecture is built on the principle of compatibility. Surely this must limit
the machine in some way? Why produce a new machine ground-up if this wasn't
true?
>it, and it would seem nothing more than a rockin'-fast Amiga. The main
>reason for the PowerPC is that it's faster, cheaper, better for
>multiprocessing, and it doesn't have those arcane instructions. But
>realize this: the Amiga architecture hasn't significantly advanced in
>five years. That's about three generations of computer.
PPC is a far better chip technically than a Pentium (even the MMX). I agree
the Amiga itself might not have had any advancement in terms of
machines/motherboards etc.. but advances in third party peripherals are nothing
short of stunning. I actually envy A1200 owners who can fit a 460kbaud serial
port with a minimal (+-2%) CPU load..
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the PowerUP PPC program..
>>> I'm sure they will, in just 2 more weeks, same as 3 years ago.
>>I fear you are correct here...
>>though I will remain with my Amiga for now, because I have yet to see an
>>alternative I like.
>And based on all of what I said above, take this advice: Never buy
>technology before you need it. You get to define "need" of course. But
"need" in my case is a 'fix' of something new and exciting..
>alternatives are on the way, more will come after that, change is the
>only constant in the business. Hopefully this year finds the Amiga
>Industry unfrozen at last, if not by a new home for the AmigaOS, then
>at least some systems that pass the "acceptable to Amiga users" acid
>test. And that, folks, may be part of my job to try to define, but you
>all have the ultimate vote.
I'm not yet sold on PIOS - it seems to me that there are going to be many
alternatives during the course of this year and given i've been waiting 3 years
for a 'development' in the computer industry i'll wait a little longer. To
move platform is difficult for some of us :()
>>I know the porpose of every single file on the boot-partition of my
>>Amiga. And thus have complete confidence in any modificatiios I wish
>>to make to it. It is a tool over which I have complete control.
>This is a major failing of the Microsoft-influenced OSs: Windows,
>OS/2, NT, whever. There is just too much "magic" stuff going on. You
>understand what happens in Startup-Sequence because, quite simply,
>Startup-Sequence is a list of what happens. You can type the same
>commands in a shell and, for the most part, get the same effect. Does
>anyone REALLY know what happens when you boot Windows 95?
I bet theres some very sad little people somewhere that actually claim they
do. I'd suggest noone but MS themselves know exactly whats going on - theres
way too much 'big brother' with MS products for my liking.
Yes, I have a PC and I only wish it were half as configurable as my Amiga.
>Interestingly, UNIX pretty much does it the Amiga way. So does BeOS.
This is a good point - maybe this is true since Be are a small independant co.
and true for UNIX since there are so many different versions of the OS.
>>I doubt I will ever understand what a significant percentage of the files
>>in a PC os are for... (and this is -not- through ignorance of it.)
>>Thus I will always be a slave to it.
>Microsoft wants you to be their dog.
Conform. Submit. Do it our way.. Yeah, exactly what you want to avoid after a
days worth of fighting MS products.
>Dave Haynie V.P. Hardware Engineering PIOS Computer
>hay...@pios.de "...no RISC, no fun"
Will the PIOS ONE get a "BOING" demo port ? :^)
Tim
David Marshall
In a post, gr...@mindspring.com (Grim) wrote:
> While I don't really see what the calculator has to do with the GUI --
> it is only 0.2 MB in size and you can add it if you like (though I'm
> pretty sure it is included in a typical install).
Excuse me!? The calculator is *really* 200K? I know it does rather a lot
more than the Amiga one, but that's only 10K...
Charlie Gibbs
In article <330bcca1....@hermes.jersey.net> dha...@jersey.net
(Dave Haynie) writes:
>And based on all of what I said above, take this advice: Never buy
>technology before you need it. You get to define "need" of course.
Not if the marketroids have their way.
>Microsoft wants you to be their dog.
QED
Charli...@mindlink.bc.ca
"IBM is not a necessary evil. IBM is not necessary." -- Ted Nelson
Grim
In article <85646273...@aestiva.demon.co.uk>, da...@durge.org
says...
The executable file is 58k. I don't know what the rest is though. I
got the 200k figure from the control panel "estimated figures" for
installation.
Grim
Hans Guijt
>While I don't really see what the calculator has to do with the GUI --
>it is only 0.2 MB in size and you can add it if you like (though I'm
YOU HAVE A BL&*DY CALCULATOR OF 200KB!!!!???? Talk about bloat...
Tell me, what can it do that my MSX-based terminate&stay resident calculator
of 600 bytes cannot? ;-)
Hans
Jernej Pecjak
>> >Amiga. And thus have complete confidence in any modificatiios I wish
>> >to make to it. It is a tool over which I have complete control.
>> This is a major failing of the Microsoft-influenced OSs:
>But this isn't a failing as far as the market is concerned, it's a
>major plus. Your average user doesn't want to konw about all that
>stuff; they just want it to work. Having to tweak dozens of small
>files - especially when they are PROGRAMS - isn't something users want
>to do. Plug-N-Play isn't merely a winning strategy, it's the name of
>the game.
Yeah, maybe, but the thing isn't working. Is like a bird without a wings. In
this unperfect world when all this wizards aren't working, you MUST need to
tweak things by hand.
Jernej
e-mails: jernej...@kiss.uni-lj.si
futur...@mrak.si
Editor of Amiga Master, The Only Slovenian amiga magazine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Running: A4000, 060/50Mhz, 1.7Gb Hard disk, Samsung 17" monitor,32Mb RAM
System alert: Although I have 32 Mb RAM, I am not connected to Microsoft
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK WWW AT: http://wet.kiss.uni-lj.si/~k4ff0030 !!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jernej Pecjak
>In article <85646273...@aestiva.demon.co.uk>, da...@durge.org
>says...
>> In a post, gr...@mindspring.com (Grim) wrote:
>> > it is only 0.2 MB in size and you can add it if you like (though I'm
>>
>> Excuse me!? The calculator is *really* 200K? I know it does rather a lot
>> more than the Amiga one, but that's only 10K...
>>
>The executable file is 58k. I don't know what the rest is though. I
>got the 200k figure from the control panel "estimated figures" for
>installation.
Can anybody explain me what has this talk to do with my topic?
Yours
Jernej
WWW page has been through a big change on 1.1.1997. Have a look
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Meyer
In <1387.6990...@guest.arnes.si>, Jernej Pecjak <vid.p...@guest.arnes.si> wrote:
> >> >Amiga. And thus have complete confidence in any modificatiios I wish
> >> >to make to it. It is a tool over which I have complete control.
> >> This is a major failing of the Microsoft-influenced OSs:
>
> >But this isn't a failing as far as the market is concerned, it's a
> >major plus. Your average user doesn't want to konw about all that
> >stuff; they just want it to work. Having to tweak dozens of small
> >files - especially when they are PROGRAMS - isn't something users want
> >to do. Plug-N-Play isn't merely a winning strategy, it's the name of
> >the game.
>
> Yeah, maybe, but the thing isn't working. Is like a bird without a wings. In
> this unperfect world when all this wizards aren't working, you MUST need to
> tweak things by hand.
No you don't - you call your local nerd to deal with it.
Of course, you're right. But most people don't really care about that
so long as it works. If it doesn't, they'll get help. So long as it's
good enough to work often enough, people will keep using it. Apple has
been playing on this "It doesn't work and is hard to fix" thing for
nearly a decade - and you can see by their latest results how well
it's working.
Microsoft is expert at marketing "good enough"...
tim
>In a post, gr...@mindspring.com (Grim) wrote:
>> While I don't really see what the calculator has to do with the GUI --
>> it is only 0.2 MB in size and you can add it if you like (though I'm
>> pretty sure it is included in a typical install).
>Excuse me!? The calculator is *really* 200K? I know it does rather a lot
>more than the Amiga one, but that's only 10K...
>Dave
>--
>http://www.aestiva.demon.co.uk/
Ahhh but it probably *does more* (yeah right..)
Tim
Tero Ahonen
Grim wrote:
>
> FYI. Win95 using a "typical" install is only 20MB.
Really? That will requires quite a lot of deleting unnecesary
files. Typical instalation is 45-55MB.
--Tero
>
> Grim
Jernej Pecjak
>No you don't - you call your local nerd to deal with it.
>Of course, you're right. But most people don't really care about that
>so long as it works. If it doesn't, they'll get help. So long as it's
>good enough to work often enough, people will keep using it. Apple has
>been playing on this "It doesn't work and is hard to fix" thing for
>nearly a decade - and you can see by their latest results how well
>it's working.
My brother has a PC and Win95. He must format is once a year, because it becomes
so terribly slow. At the moment, it always says some requesters about disk full,
although he has another 30Mb free, but he doesnßt know how to get rid of it.
He'll wait until next formatting I guess...
tim
>>> >Amiga. And thus have complete confidence in any modificatiios I wish
>>> >to make to it. It is a tool over which I have complete control.
>>> This is a major failing of the Microsoft-influenced OSs:
>>But this isn't a failing as far as the market is concerned, it's a
>>major plus. Your average user doesn't want to konw about all that
>>stuff; they just want it to work. Having to tweak dozens of small
>>files - especially when they are PROGRAMS - isn't something users want
>>to do. Plug-N-Play isn't merely a winning strategy, it's the name of
>>the game.
>Yeah, maybe, but the thing isn't working. Is like a bird without a wings. In
>this unperfect world when all this wizards aren't working, you MUST need to
>tweak things by hand.
>Jernej
Most PC support specialists I talk to say "PLUG-N-PRAY" - and this is not
without good reason!
Tim
Everett M. Greene
In article <MPG.d750fe98...@news.mindspring.com> gr...@mindspring.com (Grim) writes:
> In article <01bc1e78$e2170700$2b7c...@yanzickp.dsu.edu>,
> yanz...@columbia.dsu.edu says...
> > > FYI. Win95 using a "typical" install is only 20MB.
> > >
> > > Grim
> > Yea, "typical". Nothing at all with it, just the OS, without any
> > accessories like the calculator or anything like that. Not much of a GUI
> > if you ask me.
> While I don't really see what the calculator has to do with the GUI --
> it is only 0.2 MB in size
^^^^^^^^^^^
The plaintiff rests his case.
John Bittner
>>Excuse me!? The calculator is *really* 200K? I know it does rather a lot
>>more than the Amiga one, but that's only 10K...
>
>>Dave
>>--
>
>
>Tim
Yeah right!
It's a full function scientific calculator with decimal, hex, octal and binary
modes, including regular and hyperbolic trig functions in degrees, grads, dms,
and radians, standard deviation, scientific notation, boolean operations, etc.
It has pop-up help for each calculator button and its code size is 58k not
200k.
If there is an Amiga functional equivalent, what's it code size?
John Bittner
Zuma Group, Inc.
http://www.zumagroup.com
tim
>Yeah right!
John, I can't believe you replied to this!
BTW stay away from this one - there are several PD scientific calc programs for
the Amiga which do as much in less memory and disk space. It's the nature of
the beast - you can do a lot in less on the Amiga.
My fave program is a little calculator called 'calckey' - you can pop it up
(literally) on screen with a hotkey and drop the result into whatever app you
happen to be using at the time. Very handy in say, a BBS program where you're
chatting to someone and you need to work out something and tell them the result
:)
On the other hand, how often do you use a computer-based calc ? I rarely do,
since it's often easier to actually use a *real* one, on the desk, next the the
keyboard ;)
Tim
John Bittner
>
>John, I can't believe you replied to this!
>BTW stay away from this one - there are several PD scientific calc programs for
>the Amiga which do as much in less memory and disk space. It's the nature of
>the beast - you can do a lot in less on the Amiga.
Tim,
I'm not looking to start an argument, just trying to separate fact from
feel-good fiction. It is a fact the Windows calc is a scientific calculator
that is 58K, not the 200K in size being claimed, and that the 10K Amiga calc
is a four function job. There is simply no basis for comparison.
I have no doubt that scientific calculators for the Amiga exist and I had
hoped that you or one of the other posters could have named one with identical
features and provided its size so we could have a valid size comparison.
>On the other hand, how often do you use a computer-based calc ? I rarely do,
>since it's often easier to actually use a *real* one, on the desk, next the the
>keyboard ;)
>
>Tim
Well, since my desk is way too cluttered for me to find my calculator,
I almost always use the one on screen since I always know where it
is and can cut and paste with it.
Grim
In article <5eph25$1...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, jb...@primenet.com
says...
> >
> >John, I can't believe you replied to this!
> >BTW stay away from this one - there are several PD scientific calc programs for
> >the Amiga which do as much in less memory and disk space. It's the nature of
> >the beast - you can do a lot in less on the Amiga.
>
> Tim,
> I'm not looking to start an argument, just trying to separate fact from
> feel-good fiction. It is a fact the Windows calc is a scientific calculator
> that is 58K, not the 200K in size being claimed, and that the 10K Amiga calc
> is a four function job. There is simply no basis for comparison.
It wasn't "claimed" to be 200k. If you look under add programs, it
states that it takes 200k to install the calculator, which is what I
wrote. Later, I said that the executable was only 58k.
Grim
Tom Ole Børvik
In comp.sys.amiga.emulations, tim wrote about: "Re: Why I am so sad ... The
amiga story of the editor of AM"
>>>to do. Plug-N-Play isn't merely a winning strategy, it's the name of
>>>the game.
>>Yeah, maybe, but the thing isn't working. Is like a bird without a wings. In
>>this unperfect world when all this wizards aren't working, you MUST need to
>>tweak things by hand.
>without good reason!
As is Plug-n'-Pay.
<tsb>Tom Ole Børvik. | boe...@online.no | http://home.sol.no/boervik (coming)
Manufacturers' spec sheets will be incorrect by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0, which
ever is more optimistic. For salesman's claims, use 0.1 or 10.0.
Tom Ole Børvik
In comp.sys.amiga.emulations, John Bittner wrote about: "Re: Why I am so sad ...
The amiga story of the editor of AM"
>>>more than the Amiga one, but that's only 10K...
>It's a full function scientific calculator with decimal, hex, octal and
>binary modes, including regular and hyperbolic trig functions in degrees,
>grads, dms, and radians, standard deviation, scientific notation, boolean
>operations, etc. It has pop-up help for each calculator button and its code
>size is 58k not
>200k.
>If there is an Amiga functional equivalent, what's it code size?
MCalc, I believe. 47kB, needs MUI.
And it includes a programmers functions. And online help. And it supports
calculations in 8, 16 and 32 bits sizes. And a nice Preferences window.
Are you sure you didn't forget any DLL's and such? ;-)
<tsb>Tom Ole Børvik. | boe...@online.no | http://home.sol.no/boervik (coming)
If a circuit cannot fail, it will.
tim
>>
>>John, I can't believe you replied to this!
>>BTW stay away from this one - there are several PD scientific calc programs
>>for the Amiga which do as much in less memory and disk space. It's the
>>nature of the beast - you can do a lot in less on the Amiga.
>Tim,
>I'm not looking to start an argument, just trying to separate fact from
A first for everything ;)
>feel-good fiction. It is a fact the Windows calc is a scientific calculator
>that is 58K, not the 200K in size being claimed, and that the 10K Amiga calc
>is a four function job. There is simply no basis for comparison.
I think we can take it as read that no Amiga owner still uses the C= calc
proggy!
>I have no doubt that scientific calculators for the Amiga exist and I had
>hoped that you or one of the other posters could have named one with
>identical features and provided its size so we could have a valid size
>comparison.
Ah... but some of us *do* have a life outside this kind of thing!
Oh.. i'll have a look some time.. I used to have one but i deleted it some time
ago since I have no real need for this kind of thing on a daily basis - and for
the reason below too ;)
>>On the other hand, how often do you use a computer-based calc ? I rarely
>>do, since it's often easier to actually use a *real* one, on the desk, next
>>the the keyboard ;)
>>
>>Tim
>Well, since my desk is way too cluttered for me to find my calculator,
>I almost always use the one on screen since I always know where it
>is and can cut and paste with it.
My texas fits nicely atop my keyboard ;) It's kinda long side-to-side instead
of the usual up-down style. Did you follow that ? :)
Tim
Dennis Lee Bieber
On 23 Feb 97 17:27:25 +0000 in comp.sys.amiga.applications,
tim (dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk) declaimed:
>
> I think we can take it as read that no Amiga owner still uses the C= calc
> proggy!
>
<blink blink> That's right, there is a 4-banger lying around in
the OS installation, isn't there?...
No, I sure don't use it... For the capabilities of a GUI
4-banger I can type:
rx "say <equation>"
in a shell window much faster...
Or... since I prefer RPN, I can walk across the room and grab the
HP-48... As I recall, it does have a 256-512K ROM, and 32K of RAM... I
doubt one could emulate it in under 300K of code...
--
> ============================================================ <
> wulf...@netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> Finger for PGP key | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> ============================================================ <
> Bestiaria Home Page: http://beastie.dm.net/ <
> Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <
-=-=-=-=-=-
Usenet KILL-FILED for excessive off-topic SPAM:
worldnet.att.net
Is your site going to be next?
Hans de Groot
>On 17 Feb 97 15:15:14 +1200, misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>>The reason the PC is popular is quite simple...
>>Originally they were cheap, and they were easily expandible, thus they
>>gained popularity.
>Actually, PC were originally very expensive. When you could get an
>It's only fairly recently that PClones have become cheap. Even back in
Ok your're right, but why is it that with all those price drops an
avarage system allways costs about DM 3500,- ? They keep selling peecees for
about the same price, I know there are really cheap set in the supermaket for
about dm 1000,- But those are 486dxII or perhaps pentiums at 60mhz, but "only"
8mb mem and a "small" HD, and a 14"" monitor. NOT nearly enough to run win95
at reasonablespeed.
What I want is something in between, like a pentium 90 would be fine, nothing
special say 16 or 32 mb ram which is very cheap and a 2 gb hd, should be
possible for about dm 1700,- But you almost never see those adds. The
poweruser even buys peecee for arround dm 5500,- which are down dm 1500 in a
few months again.
Take the scsi hd's I costanty see add for 1.2 gb scsi drives for around the
dm 450. Thats cheap, but I need only a 200mb scsi drive for my old a2000, but
you can get them nowhere and if you find them they are about the same price
ass the 1.2 gb version. And I refuse to believe all of them are sold out.
>Aside from the rather arcane x86 instruction set, there's not much
>lacking in PC hardware these days. And even that fairly bogus
Its a nice idea but try to add 2 multiioboards (about dm30 each) in one peecee
it just won;t work with standard cards.. Well another idea gone. Where I work
we have a lotof peecees, all nice and modern ones, but its always a pain to
get a new peecee to do what it must (like booting up) and then the ethernet
card won;t work because you don't know the irq.. or a videocard acts strange
and later it appears to be defective. it happes too often , lets say every
week.
I must addmit that for the first time we had a real plug and play ethernet
card. We just plugged it in the peecee and voila win95 installed hardware and
it work in one go!..
>Basically, if you're having problems with the OS on a PC, and I
>certainly do, knowing what's possible on the AmigaOS, IT'S THE OS, NOT
>THE HARDWARE. If AmigaOS came out for the x86 PC tomorrow, you'd love
>it, and it would seem nothing more than a rockin'-fast Amiga. The main
I agree on the OS but No it would not work for me on the intel peecees, I can
go out now and buy an other mfc card or scsi controller or what ever and be
fairly sure add it to my amiga and have it working without much problems (if
any) !
>reason for the PowerPC is that it's faster, cheaper, better for
>multiprocessing, and it doesn't have those arcane instructions. But
>realize this: the Amiga architecture hasn't significantly advanced in
>five years. That's about three generations of computer.
same for the OS.. in fact the amiga is still sortoff amazing.. I often use the
amiga at work for processing lots of gfx (complete cd's) on a plain a4000 040
, tis could be done on a pentium 166 much faster if we had a cdrom filesystem
that could read mac cdroms, and a batch tool that could scale a picture
maintaining the aspect and allowing a max width and height, I'm sure it exists
for the peecee but no one at work knows about it. And I love the way the
amiga works with ftp mount, I'm using Cygnused almost allday, editing sites
all around the country in a very fast way I am sure of I can never reach on a
peecee, and I have tried. wordpad or textpad (i'm not sure which one) is a
very complete text editor , but it missed multiple macro's that can be
assingned to any key. Heck I even checked many editors on the amiga that were
great but lacked multiple macro's! only frexx did it, but I found it a bit
unstable and it was no improvement on ced.
Even programs like homesite are rubbisch, nice for people that do not
understand html very well, or people that don;t want a lot of hassle, but its
not fast, (but has some uses like dragging 100 gif files to it, it adds all
image sizes to all the images which saves a lot of time, but then I copy it
the cygnus ed.
ps does anyone know if there is ay hope of a ported version of Adpro or better
yet an all new version, with those new "amiga's" out or comming?
See ya
Hans de Groot
Keith Blakemore-Noble
On or around Sat, 22 Feb 97, John Bittner is alledged to have muttered
something along the lines of -
JB> It's a full function scientific calculator with decimal, hex, octal and binary
JB> It has pop-up help for each calculator button and its code size is 58k not
JB>
JB> If there is an Amiga functional equivalent, what's it code size?
Ooo, let's see. For starters, there is ACalc at around 54k. Will that do
for now?
TTFN,
Keith.
--
Http://www.amiga.u-net.com Team AMIGA
Space Corps Directive No. 196156.
Any officer caught sniffing the exercise bicycle in the women's gym will be
discharged without trial.
Hans Guijt
> rx "say <equation>"
Alternatively, try c:eval. Works great for doing simple math.
Hans
Keith Blakemore-Noble
On or around Sun, 23 Feb 97, Tom Ole Børvik is alledged to have muttered
something along the lines of -
TOB> >operations, etc. It has pop-up help for each calculator button and its code
TOB> >size is 58k not
TOB> >200k.
TOB> >If there is an Amiga functional equivalent, what's it code size?
TOB>
TOB> MCalc, I believe. 47kB, needs MUI.
Erk! Very bad example - 48k + 160k+ of MUI libs :(((!!!!
TTFN,
Keith.
--
Http://www.personal.u-net.com/~amiga Team AMIGA
"I hardly think that this is the time or place for that sort of thing."
- Alison Cringeworthy in Thigh-In-The-Sticks, 1511
Geoffrey Hyde
> On or around Sun, 23 Feb 97, Tom Ole Børvik is alledged to have muttered
> something along the lines of -
TOB>> >operations, etc. It has pop-up help for each calculator button and its
TOB>> >code size is 58k not
TOB>> >200k.
TOB>> >If there is an Amiga functional equivalent, what's it code size?
TOB>>
TOB>> MCalc, I believe. 47kB, needs MUI.
> Erk! Very bad example - 48k + 160k+ of MUI libs :(((!!!!
Yeah, but 208K is nothing compared to what some programs blow out
to on a PC! :) Imagine what size a wordprocessor for PC's would
take up? I'd imagine that this is what the bloke was trying to
point out to you. :-) Can you get functionality out of something
that is less than 1K in size? (1024 *bytes* in size) We certainly
can! :)
Also, if you want to be fair, you have to have included for the
PC program all it's help files, and anything else installed for
use by it and it only. :-)
Jeroen T. Vermeulen
In article <319.6990T...@inter.nl.net> Hans Guijt <hgu...@inter.nl.net> writes:
> >While I don't really see what the calculator has to do with the GUI --
> >it is only 0.2 MB in size and you can add it if you like (though I'm
>
> YOU HAVE A BL&*DY CALCULATOR OF 200KB!!!!???? Talk about bloat...
>
> Tell me, what can it do that my MSX-based terminate&stay resident calculator
> of 600 bytes cannot? ;-)
Look at it this way: Your 600-byte calculator PLUS the MSX emulator you need to
run it on your Amiga is about 200 Kb too, isn't it? No wonder that Amiga users
always think Windows software is bloated. ;-)
Same thing for Web browsers: I hear the latest MS Internet Explorer starts up
in a mere 16 seconds. That's only a few seconds slower than the AWeb demo (at
least if you count the 10 seconds that the demo freezes completely to remind you
of the shareware fee).
--
==========================================================================
# Jeroen T. Vermeulen \\"How are we doing?"// Yes, we use Amigas #
#--- j...@xs4all.nl ---\\"Same as always."//-- ... --#
#jver...@wi.leidenuniv.nl \\"That bad huh?"// Got a problem with that? #
Compliment to a socialist: "Your collar is very white, sir"
Charles E. Taylor IV
Geoffrey Hyde <cns0...@iig.com.au> writes:
:> On or around Sun, 23 Feb 97, Tom Ole Brvik is alledged to have muttered
:> something along the lines of -
[Windows 95 calculator being 58K + ???]
:TOB>> MCalc, I believe. 47kB, needs MUI.
:> Erk! Very bad example - 48k + 160k+ of MUI libs :(((!!!!
:Yeah, but 208K is nothing compared to what some programs blow out
:to on a PC! :)
That's an interesting leap you make there. Not that I
disagree that some Windows programs are *huge* and that MS in general
puts out extremely bloated code, but we were talking about the calculator.
The caluclator, it seems, is about one of the worst comparison points
to make if you're trying to prove that Windows is bloated. :)
: Imagine what size a wordprocessor for PC's would
:take up?
We all know MS Word is huge.
: I'd imagine that this is what the bloke was trying to
:point out to you. :-)
:Can you get functionality out of something
:that is less than 1K in size? (1024 *bytes* in size) We certainly
:can! :)
Although not *much* functionality. The Atari 2600 used
cartridges larger than 1K, and Atari 2600 code was hardly what you'd
call "bloated".
:Also, if you want to be fair, you have to have included for the
:PC program all it's help files, and anything else installed for
:use by it and it only. :-)
This is probably the "200K" figure from the installer.
--
__ ___ _ _ _ | >>>>> cha...@hubcap.clemson.edu <<<<<
|_)o _ |/ | |_|\_/| / \|_) | '94 BS ChE, '96 BS Chemistry
| \||_ |\ | | | | |_\_/| \ |"So this is it, we're going to die!" --A.D.
Charles E. "Rick" Taylor, IV | http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~charlet/
John Bittner
In article <898.6995...@iig.com.au>, Geoffrey Hyde <cns0...@iig.com.au> wrote:
>to on a PC! :) Imagine what size a wordprocessor for PC's would
>take up?
>
The Win95 version of Final Writer is approximately the same size as
the Amiga version. It's feature bloat that blow up Windows application
size more than any other factor.
John Bittner
http://www.zumagroup.com
Jaco Schoonen
Keith Blakemore-Noble (Keith.Blak...@innovision-group.com) wrote:
: On or around Sun, 23 Feb 97, Tom Ole Børvik is alledged to have muttered
: something along the lines of -
: TOB> >operations, etc. It has pop-up help for each calculator button and its code
: TOB> >size is 58k not
: TOB> >200k.
: TOB> >If there is an Amiga functional equivalent, what's it code size?
: TOB>
: TOB> MCalc, I believe. 47kB, needs MUI.
: Erk! Very bad example - 48k + 160k+ of MUI libs :(((!!!!
You're forgetting something:
For example when I'm using my amiga for internet I use amftp,amirc, ibrowse,
weather experience, amtelnet, yam all at the same time. That's 6
applications using the same SHARED libraries.
That would be less than 27k for MUI per application.
People might even use more MUI applications at the same time.....
--
Jaco Schoonen
(ja...@stack.nl)
Jernej Pecjak
>>to on a PC! :) Imagine what size a wordprocessor for PC's would
>>take up?
>>
>The Win95 version of Final Writer is approximately the same size as
>the Amiga version. It's feature bloat that blow up Windows application
>size more than any other factor.
PC programmers usually don't know how to spare memory, that is. Maybe they get
paid by ardware companies. Microsoft sure must have such deal.
Jernej
Dennis Lee Bieber
On 24 Feb 97 20:29:15 +0100 in comp.sys.amiga.applications,
Hans Guijt (hgu...@inter.nl.net) declaimed:
> > rx "say <equation>"
>
> Alternatively, try c:eval. Works great for doing simple math.
>
If it's /that/ simple I'll use a piece of scratch paper (usually
a stack just between the keyboard and monitor) <G>
tim
>:> Erk! Very bad example - 48k + 160k+ of MUI libs :(((!!!!
>:Yeah, but 208K is nothing compared to what some programs blow out
>:to on a PC! :)
>That's an interesting leap you make there. Not that I
>disagree that some Windows programs are *huge* and that MS in general
>puts out extremely bloated code, but we were talking about the calculator.
I don't think anyone is going out on a limb by saying MS produce bloated code -
it's just realism for you :) Size of MS products doesn't relate directly to the
features they provide - programs just get 'huge' without acutally offering
*that* much more. I'll agree something like Word 6 will offer tons of features,
but i'll certainly be the first one to say you can do the same with a lot less
glut.
>The caluclator, it seems, is about one of the worst comparison points
>to make if you're trying to prove that Windows is bloated. :)
Not really, it's not valid to include datatypes, libraries and suchlike since
these are shared resources on an Amiga system. You can expect these kind of
things to pre-exist on the Amiga much like you expect a PC to be running
Windows. The problem with Win development is that theres always much more than
just an '.exe.' for a program.
>: Imagine what size a wordprocessor for PC's would
>:take up?
>We all know MS Word is huge.
>: I'd imagine that this is what the bloke was trying to
>:point out to you. :-)
>:Can you get functionality out of something
>:that is less than 1K in size? (1024 *bytes* in size) We certainly
>:can! :)
>Although not *much* functionality. The Atari 2600 used
>cartridges larger than 1K, and Atari 2600 code was hardly what you'd
>call "bloated".
All assembler and no OS to worry about :)
>:Also, if you want to be fair, you have to have included for the
>:PC program all it's help files, and anything else installed for
>:use by it and it only. :-)
Tim
tim
>>to on a PC! :) Imagine what size a wordprocessor for PC's would
>>take up?
>>
>The Win95 version of Final Writer is approximately the same size as
>the Amiga version. It's feature bloat that blow up Windows application
>size more than any other factors.
Features or MicroSoft? Anything MS programs is bloated ;) AFAIK Final Writer
on the PC is not a port of the current Amiga 5.06 version anyways.
Good programming will always make small, compact and reliable code on any system
- it's just that on the PC you can get away with a hell of a lot in terms of
size, memory and cpu requirements. You can even release non-working software
(beta) and sell it without being sued. MS are great illustrators of this.
Tim
Benjamin Hutchings
[Newsgroups trimmed]
In article <809.6996...@angeldos.demon.co.uk>,
tim <dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>Good programming will always make small, compact and reliable code on any system
>- it's just that on the PC you can get away with a hell of a lot in terms of
>size, memory and cpu requirements. You can even release non-working software
>(beta) and sell it without being sued. MS are great illustrators of this.
Need I mention PageStream 3.0, or AmigaOS 1.0? Those were both
effectively beta, and were commercial releases. MS has been the worst
offender in recent years, but it's not the only one!
--
Ben Hutchings,|finger m95...@booth42.ecs.ox.ac.uk|mail benjamin.hutchings@
compsci&mathmo|lynx http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223|worcester.oxford.ac.uk
Two Rules: (1) Don't sweat the small stuff. (2) Everything is small stuff.
Benjamin Hutchings
In article <5f18at$n...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Benjamin Hutchings <worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>[Newsgroups trimmed]
>
>In article <809.6996...@angeldos.demon.co.uk>,
>tim <dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>>Good programming will always make small, compact and reliable code on any system
>>- it's just that on the PC you can get away with a hell of a lot in terms of
>>size, memory and cpu requirements. You can even release non-working software
>>(beta) and sell it without being sued. MS are great illustrators of this.
>
>Need I mention PageStream 3.0, or AmigaOS 1.0? Those were both
>effectively beta, and were commercial releases. MS has been the worst
>offender in recent years, but it's not the only one!
Sorry to follow up to myself, but let me add CyberGraphX 3.0 to that
list. According to CU Amiga, the CyberVision 64 3D is being shipped
with CGX 3.0 beta, and they found some pretty horrible bugs in that!
--
Ben Hutchings,|finger m95...@booth42.ecs.ox.ac.uk|mail benjamin.hutchings@
compsci&mathmo|lynx http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223|worcester.oxford.ac.uk
Imagine...you cannot count past three... You take your crayon and pair people
with houses... We adopt the same solution. - Enderton, Elements of Set Theory
Alan L.M. Buxey
On 20 Feb 97 22:15:05 +0000 ,tim posted the following:
: >In a post, gr...@mindspring.com (Grim) wrote:
: >> While I don't really see what the calculator has to do with the GUI --
: >> it is only 0.2 MB in size and you can add it if you like (though I'm
: >Excuse me!? The calculator is *really* 200K? I know it does rather a lot
: >more than the Amiga one, but that's only 10K...
exactly - for 200k you can use ACalc and do a whole lot more!
alan
Alan L.M. Buxey
: >> >
: >> > > Just this: A "0S" like WIN 95 taking up 100+Mb and relying on third par
: >> > > hacks to have screens is not even worth my words...
: >> >
: >> > It takes 100 Mb because it *does more*. It includes things like
: >> > networking, and OLE, and others, that AmigaDOS does not include.
i'd bloody hope it would for 100MB of space! - AmigaDOs takes up 512K of
ROM and another 2.5 MB of harddrive space for full installation.
to that, you can add maybe another 2 MB for full networking and maybe
another 1MB for extras like MagicWB and MUI. still under 10MB and it'll
perform a whole lot better - even on a system with only 5% the speed of
a pentium pro MMX 200
alan
men...@coloradomtn.edu
On 26 Feb 1997 11:55:09 GMT, worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Benjamin
Hutchings) wrote:
>[Newsgroups trimmed]
>
>In article <809.6996...@angeldos.demon.co.uk>,
>tim <dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>>Good programming will always make small, compact and reliable code on any system
>>- it's just that on the PC you can get away with a hell of a lot in terms of
>>size, memory and cpu requirements. You can even release non-working software
>>(beta) and sell it without being sued. MS are great illustrators of this.
For the people that bought win95 beta, did they get a free upgrade to
the final version?
>
>Need I mention PageStream 3.0,
wasn't that more like an alpha :)
>or AmigaOS 1.0?
Having never used 1.0 which was better windows 1.0 or amigaos 1.0
Dr. Peter Kittel
In article <92.6994T...@inter.nl.net> Hans Guijt <hgu...@inter.nl.net> writes:
>>
>> rx "say <equation>"
>
>Alternatively, try c:eval. Works great for doing simple math.
But only for *very* simple math. If you want it to do elegantly, you do:
assign calc rx "say []"
and then invoke it e.g. with
calc 2+3*4
This gives correctly 14. When you try 'eval 2+3*4', it says 20, because
it doesn't obey operator precedence.
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: pet...@pios.de
Jernej Pecjak
>Sorry to follow up to myself, but let me add CyberGraphX 3.0 to that
>list. According to CU Amiga, the CyberVision 64 3D is being shipped
>with CGX 3.0 beta, and they found some pretty horrible bugs in that!
Maybe they didn't look good. I find it better and more stable than 2.22 I also
have.
Yours
Jernej
WWW page has been through a big change on 1.1.1997. Have a look
Geoffrey Hyde
[...]
>:Yeah, but 208K is nothing compared to what some programs blow out
>:to on a PC! :)
>That's an interesting leap you make there. Not that I
>disagree that some Windows programs are *huge* and that MS in general
>puts out extremely bloated code, but we were talking about the calculator.
They were, but I'm talking about Win95 vs Amiga progs generally,
which is necessary if anyone's going to make an accurate
assessement of the operating systems involved. :-)
>The caluclator, it seems, is about one of the worst comparison points
>to make if you're trying to prove that Windows is bloated. :)
I wasn't trying to use it as an example, was I? :-)
>: Imagine what size a wordprocessor for PC's would
>:take up?
>We all know MS Word is huge.
Indeed. I've seen and used PC versions and sometimes wondered how
on earth they managed to make such oversized programs for such a
simple-looking task?
>: I'd imagine that this is what the bloke was trying to
>:point out to you. :-)
>:Can you get functionality out of something
>:that is less than 1K in size? (1024 *bytes* in size) We certainly
>:can! :)
>Although not *much* functionality. The Atari 2600 used
>cartridges larger than 1K, and Atari 2600 code was hardly what you'd
>call "bloated".
Well, several useful AmigaDOS programs reside in the C: directory
of my hard disk, and there are a few others that are just over
1024 bytes in size, that are quite useful as well. :-)
>:Also, if you want to be fair, you have to have included for the
>:PC program all it's help files, and anything else installed for
>:use by it and it only. :-)
Somehow, I lost your quoting for this bit, but yes I get your
point on that too. :-)
Matthew Schinckel
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Keith Blakemore-Noble wrote:
> On or around Sun, 23 Feb 97, Tom Ole B=F8rvik is alledged to have muttere=
d
> something along the lines of -
> TOB> MCalc, I believe. 47kB, needs MUI.
>=20
> Erk! Very bad example - 48k + 160k+ of MUI libs :(((!!!!
>=20
Better 160k of MUI libs than 70M of Win95 OS!!!
I look at MUI as kind of being a bit like the OS - in the fact that it is=
=20
a set of shared libs that can be accessed by any program.
Matt.
---
Matthew Schinckel - ma...@null.net Shapeshifter #2813
TopFerm...@beer.com (Yay Coopers Ale!)
Jill A. Snider
pet...@combo.ganesha.com (Dr. Peter Kittel) writes:
>But only for *very* simple math. If you want it to do elegantly, you do:
>assign calc rx "say []"
>and then invoke it e.g. with
>calc 2+3*4
>This gives correctly 14. When you try 'eval 2+3*4', it says 20, because
>it doesn't obey operator precedence.
It works! COOL! (But I think that should be "alias" instead of "assign")
Pat Larkin Louisville Kentucky USA
seven four two four six dot one zero seven seven at compuserve dot com
Please use this anti-spam address for replies, not the one at the top
--
Ketil Hunn
>On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Keith Blakemore-Noble wrote:
>Better 160k of MUI libs than 70M of Win95 OS!!!
Get real! They're not even comparable!
To be frank, I don't know why you guys even bother with this thread.
The PC people will never convince the Amiga people that PC is a cool
computer and vice versa. The fight will go on and on until Amiga dies
and PC lives on.
Yes, I believe that Amiga will disappear within a few years. It is not
a matter of IF, but WHEN. The support right now might be better than
in years, but the fact that the computer is no longer manufactured and
the fact that the world standard _is_ PC, Amiga _will_ die...
I am not saying that this is good, because we certainly need
competitors to Windows and NT. The sad thing is that Amiga is not
considered to be a competitor to the PC.
I had an Amiga 3000 for 5 years and I released several freeware
programs, one shareware program and several source codes. I was an
Amiga fanatic. I even refused to buy a PC because I hated Win3.11 so
much. I tried to convince my friends to buy Amiga's instead of PC's. I
showed them how cool my Amiga looked; dragging the screens up and
down, switching between applications at the speed of light, playing
MOD files while formatting a disk, etc. But my friends just replied:
"Cool, but what can I use it for?".
I had to agree with them later... when I bought a PC. People don't
want what the Amiga can offer. They want software, and they want tons
of it, they want browsers that handle the latest (non-standard) HTML
codes, they want "WYSMBWYG" (What You See May Be What You Get)
HTML editors, they want Word, they want Excel, they want to be able to
drag objects into a document and the document will automatically
display it in its right format, they want the latest in games, they
want integrated programming environments (if you have ever tried
Visual C++ you know what I mean, SAS/C C++ for Amiga is nothing
compared to VC++), they want to be able to share documents and data
with their co-workers, they want to be able to bring work home from
their office, they want to be able to display on-line help for the OS,
they want cheap system with lots of features and they want a cheese
helmet...
And PC simply offers this at a lower price than what an Amiga would
cost. PC is easier to use for the novice and it is more powerful for
the professionals.
But the Amiga people are too narrow-minded to see this... Stop
whining! If your Amiga does what you want, then keep it. If it
doesn't, then buy another computer. Don't flame other people who
abandon the Amiga - they do it for a reason. Amiga is not a religion
(it seems to be for some...unfortunately) and you don't have to hate
everybody that does not follow the same "religion" as you do...
All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
not do you any good...
Get it?
____________________________________________________________________
Ketil Hunn MSIS student at the
6629 Wilkins Ave University of Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
U.S.A. mailto: ke...@sis.pitt.edu
Phone: 412 421 5735 http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~ketil/
Andre Paulsberg
Ketil Hunn wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Keith Blakemore-Noble wrote:
> >Better 160k of MUI libs than 70M of Win95 OS!!!
>
> Get real! They're not even comparable!
> the fact that the world standard _is_ PC, Amiga _will_ die...
Bullshit!
The DIE-HARD users of AMIGA will just move on to the A-BOX, or an other
AMIGA -> POWER PC conversion.
> I am not saying that this is good, because we certainly need
> competitors to Windows and NT. The sad thing is that Amiga is not
> considered to be a competitor to the PC.
Here you are very right.
> "Cool, but what can I use it for?".
Yes, PC user have been saying this for years.
Then MicroSoft releases a similar function in WIN95,
suddenly everybody in the whole stinking PC world needs it..
Get my point.
> And PC simply offers this at a lower price than what an Amiga would
> cost. PC is easier to use for the novice and it is more powerful for
> the professionals.
This is totaly wrong.
A computer for everybody is NOT a professional computer, spesialy not
with a totaly useless OS like WIN95.
Functions in todays WIN95 have been used in AMIGA's for years,
and are much more well adjusted on the AMIGA then on WIN95.
Every time I install SW on a PC I have no control over it's placement,
meaning long and hard hours of cleanup operations to remove this SW
if I decide to change it.
And size of those SW-packs:
100MB for WIN95
200MB for Office
300MB for VC++ (with online help).
20-100MB for each CD-rom game I install
And if I don't have like Pentium 150MHz, 128MB RAM,
3GIGS or more diskspace WIN95 will choke my PC.
MicroSoft is cloning the superb WorkBench/MAC, and the user of WIN95
are following MicroSoft like a bounch of sheep!
They've been doing it for years, people just don't seem to be aiming
for the future when they buy computers. All they want is what their
next door freind have, yesterdays computer.
Regards André Paulsberg, NORWAY (sorry about bad english..)
If you had an A3000 you would know this.
Today the PC is just an advanced PLAYSTATION, used mostly for amuse.
Keith Blakemore-Noble
On or around Thu, 27 Feb 97, Ketil Hunn is alledged to have muttered
something along the lines of -
KH> >On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Keith Blakemore-Noble wrote:
KH> >Better 160k of MUI libs than 70M of Win95 OS!!!
KH>
KH> Get real! They're not even comparable!
KH>
KH> To be frank, I don't know why you guys even bother with this thread.
'cos it's fun :)
KH> All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
KH> not do you any good...
OK. Point taken. After all, it's not like people who don't want the thread
can't just ignore it I suppose... ;)
TTFN,
Keith.
P.S. Mouse Amiga mouse-pointer looks much nicer than the Windows one
does... ;)
--
Http://www.personal.u-net.com/~amiga Team AMIGA
Upon exploring a potentially hostile planet, do not use the phrase
"Greetings, mutants, we have come to conquer your planet",
even in fun.
CMM
>>On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Keith Blakemore-Noble wrote:
>>Better 160k of MUI libs than 70M of Win95 OS!!!
>Get real! They're not even comparable!
>To be frank, I don't know why you guys even bother with this thread.
>The PC people will never convince the Amiga people that PC is a cool
>computer and vice versa. The fight will go on and on until Amiga dies
>and PC lives on.
>Yes, I believe that Amiga will disappear within a few years. It is not
>a matter of IF, but WHEN. The support right now might be better than
>in years, but the fact that the computer is no longer manufactured and
>the fact that the world standard _is_ PC, Amiga _will_ die...
Now here is another bright one...the Amiga is no longer manufactured? Tell
that to QuikPak who have been pushing them out the door as fast as they can
make them for two years...I mean, were do some of these people come from an
alternate plane of existance where there is no reality....
>I am not saying that this is good, because we certainly need
>competitors to Windows and NT. The sad thing is that Amiga is not
>considered to be a competitor to the PC.
>I had an Amiga 3000 for 5 years and I released several freeware
>programs, one shareware program and several source codes. I was an
>Amiga fanatic. I even refused to buy a PC because I hated Win3.11 so
>much. I tried to convince my friends to buy Amiga's instead of PC's. I
>showed them how cool my Amiga looked; dragging the screens up and
>down, switching between applications at the speed of light, playing
>MOD files while formatting a disk, etc. But my friends just replied:
>"Cool, but what can I use it for?".
>I had to agree with them later... when I bought a PC.
Peer pressure...
>People don't
>want what the Amiga can offer.
Many obviously do.....
> They want software, and they want tons
>of it,
Most of it not worth having btw,....I read in a magazine not too long ago that
out of all the programs made for the PC last year...and all the hoopla of
being able to go to Wal-Mart or whereever and being able to buy all this
stuff.....well according to the article about 92% of the programs sold less
than 100 copies....This I think says something about all this wonderful
software that is available for the PC...over 90% of it sucks. All PC users
that I know all use the same 6 or 7 programs.....so in effect the PC would
flourish with a handful of programs because that is all most of them use....
>they want browsers that handle the latest (non-standard) HTML
>codes, they want "WYSMBWYG" (What You See May Be What You Get)
>HTML editors, they want Word,
Why?
> they want Excel, they want to be able to
>drag objects into a document and the document will automatically
>display it in its right format, they want the latest in games, they
>want integrated programming environments (if you have ever tried
>Visual C++ you know what I mean, SAS/C C++ for Amiga is nothing
>compared to VC++), they want to be able to share documents and data
>with their co-workers, they want to be able to bring work home from
>their office, they want to be able to display on-line help for the OS,
>they want cheap system with lots of features and they want a cheese
>helmet...
and they want a computer that will lock up approximately 7.3 times a day and
that many spend days on trying to get a CD ROM to work or a game to
play...oohhh but now they have "Plug & Pray"...what a joke
>And PC simply offers this at a lower price than what an Amiga would
>cost. PC is easier to use for the novice
I don't know about that...what do you find so complicated on the Amiga as
compared to a platform that doesn't even have a decent directory utility
>and it is more powerful for
>the professionals.
Yeah, most PC users I know are ones who have bought the best (well that is
what someone has told them anyway) 166mhz+ pentiums...can barely turn on the
computer, and occasionally enter a name and address into a database and maybe
write and print a letter on occasion...this is the honest to God truth...
These same people acutally believe that Windows95 does true pre-emptive
multitasking, that this is something new that Bill Gates has brought to
them, etc.....and they don't even know what it is.......and will argue
rediculious things till they are blue in the face...believe that any hardware
they add to their computers is just going to work perfectly with no
hassles..as if by magic, because Bill Gates told them they had Plug & Play,
and on and on and on...it is really pitiful.
>But the Amiga people are too narrow-minded to see this...Stop
>whining!
This coming from the wonder boy who is too narrow minded to even be aware of
the fact that the Amiga is STILL being manufatured?
>If your Amiga does what you want, then keep it.
I plan on it....
>If it
>doesn't, then buy another computer.
If they ever make another computer...I might consider it!
> Don't flame other people who
>abandon the Amiga - they do it for a reason. Amiga is not a religion
>(it seems to be for some...unfortunately) and you don't have to hate
>everybody that does not follow the same "religion" as you do...
>All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
>not do you any good...
>Get it?
Got it....you are delusional, paranoid and possibly a danger to yourself and
others. Please get help....:)
CMM
>>On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Keith Blakemore-Noble wrote:
>>Better 160k of MUI libs than 70M of Win95 OS!!!
>Get real! They're not even comparable!
>To be frank, I don't know why you guys even bother with this thread.
>The PC people will never convince the Amiga people that PC is a cool
>computer and vice versa. The fight will go on and on until Amiga dies
>and PC lives on.
>Yes, I believe that Amiga will disappear within a few years. It is not
>a matter of IF, but WHEN. The support right now might be better than
>in years, but the fact that the computer is no longer manufactured and
>the fact that the world standard _is_ PC, Amiga _will_ die...
>I am not saying that this is good, because we certainly need
>competitors to Windows and NT. The sad thing is that Amiga is not
>considered to be a competitor to the PC.
>I had an Amiga 3000 for 5 years and I released several freeware
>programs, one shareware program and several source codes. I was an
>Amiga fanatic. I even refused to buy a PC because I hated Win3.11 so
>much. I tried to convince my friends to buy Amiga's instead of PC's. I
>showed them how cool my Amiga looked; dragging the screens up and
>down, switching between applications at the speed of light, playing
>MOD files while formatting a disk, etc. But my friends just replied:
>"Cool, but what can I use it for?".
>I had to agree with them later... when I bought a PC. People don't
>want what the Amiga can offer. They want software, and they want tons
>of it, they want browsers that handle the latest (non-standard) HTML
>codes, they want "WYSMBWYG" (What You See May Be What You Get)
>HTML editors, they want Word, they want Excel, they want to be able to
>drag objects into a document and the document will automatically
>display it in its right format, they want the latest in games, they
>want integrated programming environments (if you have ever tried
>Visual C++ you know what I mean, SAS/C C++ for Amiga is nothing
>compared to VC++), they want to be able to share documents and data
>with their co-workers, they want to be able to bring work home from
>their office, they want to be able to display on-line help for the OS,
>they want cheap system with lots of features and they want a cheese
>helmet...
>And PC simply offers this at a lower price than what an Amiga would
>cost. PC is easier to use for the novice and it is more powerful for
>the professionals.
>But the Amiga people are too narrow-minded to see this... Stop
>whining! If your Amiga does what you want, then keep it. If it
>doesn't, then buy another computer. Don't flame other people who
>abandon the Amiga - they do it for a reason. Amiga is not a religion
>(it seems to be for some...unfortunately) and you don't have to hate
>everybody that does not follow the same "religion" as you do...
>All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
>not do you any good...
>Get it?
Mike Meyer
In <33159e20...@usenet.pitt.edu>, ke...@sis.pitt.edu (Ketil Hunn) wrote:
> I had to agree with them later... when I bought a PC. People don't
> want what the Amiga can offer.
Exactly.
> They want software, and they want tons
> of it, they want browsers that handle the latest (non-standard) HTML
> codes, they want "WYSMBWYG" (What You See May Be What You Get)
> HTML editors, they want Word, they want Excel, they want to be able to
> drag objects into a document and the document will automatically
> display it in its right format, they want the latest in games, they
> want integrated programming environments (if you have ever tried
> Visual C++ you know what I mean, SAS/C C++ for Amiga is nothing
> compared to VC++), they want to be able to share documents and data
> with their co-workers, they want to be able to bring work home from
> their office, they want to be able to display on-line help for the OS,
> they want cheap system with lots of features and they want a cheese
> helmet...
This is what the PC offers. Now, let's consider what I want:
A windowing system that I can configure for to be intuitive for me to
use and in general stays out of the way. A multitasking system that
is stable enough that running 7 or 8 apps at a time isn't asking for
disaster, and doesn't have strange modes that lock out everything
else. Application that know they're in a premptive multitasking
environment and don't expect to take over the machine. A system where
the OS and applications are stable enough that I don't consider a day
of work without are reboot unusual.
Basically, I want a system that provides a work environment that lets
me WORK, and not spend time cursing the windowing system, watching the
system reboot, or waiting for some application that's decided that
it's more important that I read their flash screens than get something
done in another application.
I can understand that those things are aren't what the public wants -
they're happy with a system that just doesn't meet my needs. This
means that I'm going to wind up paying ever higher costs to get my
computing needs met, as Windows keeps killing off the low-end market.
That's the price I pay for not realizing that 100,000,000 lemmings
can't be wrong.
> And PC simply offers this at a lower price than what an Amiga would
> cost. PC is easier to use for the novice and it is more powerful for
> the professionals.
Yes, the IBM PC offers what the lemmings want at a lower price than
the Amiga. It doesn't offer what I want AT ALL.
The IBM PC might be easier for novices to use, but it might not. In
either case, it's easier to find help with it, which is more important
(and why Windows is beating up the Mac, even though the Mac is easier
to use for the novice). It's certainly not more powerful for
professionals - at least, not this one. The windowing and menu system
requires extra actions for nearly everything I want to do, and it
crashes whenever I treat it like a real computer. There may bemore
powerful applications that make me more productive if I only do what
they want, but lose out overall when I can't easily switch between
among three or four (or more) things at a time.
> But the Amiga people are too narrow-minded to see this...
Oh, horse pucky. They're just pissed off that the general public has
such low standards in the areas THEY care about that pieces of crap
like Windows 95 and NetScape Navigator can dominate the market. Trying
to raise the standards of the general public is hard, but the only
choice we've got.
Unfortunately, Bill Gates is aware that no one has ever lost money
understimating the taste of the american public.
> Get it?
Yes. Apparently, you don't.
<mike
--
Do NOT reply to the address in the From: header. Reply to mwm instead
of bouncenews at the same machine. You have been warned. Sending
unsoliticed email I consider commercial gives me permission to
subscribe you to a mail list of my choice.
Ketil Hunn
On 27 Feb 97 12:08:33 -0600 CMM <tu...@gulftel.com> wrote:
>Now here is another bright one...the Amiga is no longer manufactured? Tell
>that to QuikPak who have been pushing them out the door as fast as they can
>make them for two years...
If this is true, then I was wrong. Then I change my statement to 'not
manufactured as much as they used to be' ;) The point is that I used
to see Amiga-shops everywhere in my hometown, but they're gone now.
Now that I live in the states I can clearly see that Amiga is almost
dead here too...
>Peer pressure...
No, wanted to do programming on the computer I will most probably
program on when I get a job. I wanted to know the integrated packages
that are available on the PC platform. I wanted to develop software
that has a broad audience (not just some 100.000 users in Germany).
Just imagine yourself at the job interview: "What have you know?".
"Well, I have programmed games on the Amiga for 5 years now... I know
the AmigaOS very well...". Right.
>Most of it not worth having btw
And this is not true on Amiga? I remember downloading programs off the
Aminet. Most of it was crap, just like on the PC. But there are tons
of useful software to buy for the PC, and not much for the Amiga.
>Why?
Don't ask me, ask the world. If everybody wanted what the Amiga
offered, it would be the best selling computer in the world.
Apparently, it's not.
>and they want a computer that will lock up approximately 7.3 times a day and
>that many spend days on trying to get a CD ROM to work or a game to
>play...oohhh but now they have "Plug & Pray"...what a joke
That is a matter of setup. My PC hardly ever crash. The only sad thing
about PC is that it is the only platform I've used where the OS itself
can crash and not just the applications...
>I don't know about that...what do you find so complicated on the Amiga as
>compared to a platform that doesn't even have a decent directory utility
I didn't say _I_ had problems with the Amiga. And I don't want to
repeat myself, so go ahead and read the paragraf again...
>Yeah, most PC users I know are ones who have bought the best (well that is
>what someone has told them anyway) 166mhz+ pentiums...can barely turn on the
>computer, and occasionally enter a name and address into a database and maybe
>write and print a letter on occasion...this is the honest to God truth...
Then there's truly something wrong with the setup! Do you think the
whole world has a computer as slow as that?
>Got it....you are delusional, paranoid and possibly a danger to yourself and
>others. Please get help....:)
And this proves my point about some Amiga users... Can't do a simple
discussion about the OS without getting personal.
The Amiga is just a computer, a tool! It is not a religion. You don't
have to defend it with your honour etc. ... ;)
John Bittner
>These same people acutally believe that Windows95 does true pre-emptive
>multitasking,
They believe it because it happens to be true.
John Bittner
http://zumagroup.com
CMM
>>These same people acutally believe that Windows95 does true pre-emptive
>>multitasking,
>They believe it because it happens to be true.
>John Bittner
>http://zumagroup.com
Oh..right John! It seems that you are applying Microsofts definition of true
pre-emptive multitasking as compared to reality and the rest of the worlds
definition! Hell Windows95 will barely run with Exchange. Come back to
reality, and forget what Bill Gates has said......I was always curious as to
why MS bought the rights to "Start Me Up"...when really all it does over and
over and over and over again....is say "make a grown man cry." I guess you
also believe that Win95 has "plug and play?" This is a good joke as well...
Ketil Hunn
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:29:23 +0100 Andre Paulsberg <an...@applause.no>
wrote:
>Bullshit!
>The DIE-HARD users of AMIGA will just move on to the A-BOX, or an other
>AMIGA -> POWER PC conversion.
So what? That is not the Amiga is it? I said the AMIGA would die...
not the people using it... ;-)
The C= 64 people said the same thing: "Our computer will never die, as
long as there are people out there supporting it - it will never die".
It didn't last long though.. I'm sure the Amiga is going to last
longer than the C= 64 did, but you will see a decrease of Amiga
fanatics every year...
>Then MicroSoft releases a similar function in WIN95,
>suddenly everybody in the whole stinking PC world needs it..
>Get my point.
I didn't say that MS didn't invent the functions in their 'own' OS, so
what's your point? You don't like Windows because it stole some ideas
from other OS (and who knows, maybe even AmigaOS)?
>A computer for everybody is NOT a professional computer, spesialy not
>with a totaly useless OS like WIN95.
That is not what I said either. I said it was easier for the novice to
get started with the PC. That may not be because the OS is better, but
it is better supported. The OS and other software is pre-installed,
the user can get started right away. You got on-line help for the OS
available from the desktop, etc.
Is there on-line help for the OS in 3.1? Nope. Does the Amiga come
with an internet package (as standard)? Nope.
>Every time I install SW on a PC I have no control over it's placement,
>meaning long and hard hours of cleanup operations to remove this SW
>if I decide to change it.
You don't have full control even on Amiga. The installation program
can copy files wherever it wants to on your Amiga. Of course you can
log the installation, but that you can do on a PC as well...
The only thing that really stinks about Win95 is the Registry, but
that would not be a problem if the the installation script would
create dummy keys for their keys during the installation process.
Unfortunately, not many of the programmers do not know this and that
sucks. But that says something about the programmers on PC, not the OS
itself.
>MicroSoft is cloning the superb WorkBench/MAC, and the user of WIN95
>are following MicroSoft like a bounch of sheep!
Not true. As with the Amiga, there are some fanatics, but most people
couldn't give a shit about where the software comes from as long as
it's good. I am in fact happy to see Java on the arena - fit for fight
against the world of Bill Gates... but that's another story.
>They've been doing it for years, people just don't seem to be aiming
>for the future when they buy computers. All they want is what their
>next door freind have, yesterdays computer.
And what is the Amiga then? 5-year old technology... :)
John Christian Lonningdal
CMM <tu...@gulftel.com> wrote:
>Oh..right John! It seems that you are applying Microsofts definition of true
>pre-emptive multitasking as compared to reality and the rest of the worlds
>definition! Hell Windows95 will barely run with Exchange. Come back to
>reality, and forget what Bill Gates has said......I was always curious as to
>why MS bought the rights to "Start Me Up"...when really all it does over and
>over and over and over again....is say "make a grown man cry." I guess you
>also believe that Win95 has "plug and play?" This is a good joke as well...
>
As a previous Amiga owner I have to defend the PC in most of the
aspects that Ketil points out. I also must agree that the multitasking
is not preemtive according to some definitions, but that it works
pretty well considering it's a system that tries to be compatible with
earlier systems Win 3.1 and to actually still be able to run old 8086
program for those who desire that.
This is exactly that has driven the PC to be the market leader system,
and more specifically Microsoft's OS. A good business can't just tell
it's customers to take a hike and buy all their software again for
this new OS, and that is why Win95 still has its quirks. According to
articles I've read, still 80% of business run Win 3.1, and companies
still produce Win 3.1 programs. But this is degrading as most do the
transfer to Win95.
As for experience, I mainly used my Amiga for programming, just as I
did with my C64 in the "good old days". I eventually found the PC to
have better tools for making general purpose programs (while the Intel
instruction set sucked big time) than what I had on the Amiga. So I
made the switch, and today I must agree with Ketil that Visual C++ by
far is the best programming environment I've ever used (and I've tried
quite a few by now). Coding is a dream compared to anything I've seen
on the Amiga. And the sheer amount of great programs is bound to
satisfy anyone out there.
Plug and play seems to work as good as I have ever expected. This is
as much a hardware standard as a software thing. Every time I've
inserted a new piece of hardware Win95 has always detected it and
asked me if I wanted to use the Win95 supplied drivers if availiable,
or use drivers from the disk that come with the hardware. No problems
at all.
I can also tell you that most of crashes that you'll ever encounter on
the Win95 platform is caused by bad programming in a specific
application. Fortunately since the Intel platform has memory
protecting (which I believe the Amiga does not), 95% of all program
failure are recoverable and lets you kill the particular program that
caused the problem. 4% of the crashes are caused by the fact that
Win95 rely on hardware drivers to be functioning correctly. These are
delivered by the hardware manufacturer and therefore often out of the
OS's and Microsoft's hand. I bet I can make those Amiga's guru on you
by screwing up one of the libraries the system rely on. This is an
unfortunate result of the policy behind the PC, to be a licence free
machine where everybody can make hardware to it if they want. This is
also the reason why it wins over the Macintosh system, because you can
get the latest hardware at a very reasonable price.
As a programmer and experienced user I still can't find any good
reasons to revert to an Amiga system. The PC gives me all I want and
my system obviously works remarkably good compared to some tales I
read about (specifically from Amiga people it would seem).
I hope you are happy with your Amiga, I'm very happy with my PC at
least.
John
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Christian Lonningdal - http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~john
jo...@lis.pitt.edu - Ph: (412) 521-9386 - MSIS at Univ. of Pitt.
tim
>>On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Keith Blakemore-Noble wrote:
>>Better 160k of MUI libs than 70M of Win95 OS!!!
>Get real! They're not even comparable!
Not directly, possibly. Perhaps he means the concepts rather than a specific
comparison? :)
>To be frank, I don't know why you guys even bother with this thread.
>The PC people will never convince the Amiga people that PC is a cool
>computer and vice versa. The fight will go on and on until Amiga dies
>and PC lives on.
Yup, the Amiga will die, but it will be replaced by forthcoming machines.
(not PC's tho.. sorry)
>Yes, I believe that Amiga will disappear within a few years. It is not
>a matter of IF, but WHEN. The support right now might be better than
>in years, but the fact that the computer is no longer manufactured and
>the fact that the world standard _is_ PC, Amiga _will_ die...
You can buy a new Amiga from Eagle still - manufacturing will continue if
QuickPak have their way. Yup the 'standard' is a PC - but let's face it - the
Mac has been around for a hell of a long time. Why? Because everyone is
different, and there will _always_ be independance to the mainstream. Theres
nothing unhealthy in that.
>I am not saying that this is good, because we certainly need
>competitors to Windows and NT. The sad thing is that Amiga is not
>considered to be a competitor to the PC.
An alternative - competitor no.
>I had an Amiga 3000 for 5 years and I released several freeware
>programs, one shareware program and several source codes. I was an
>Amiga fanatic. I even refused to buy a PC because I hated Win3.11 so
>much. I tried to convince my friends to buy Amiga's instead of PC's. I
>showed them how cool my Amiga looked; dragging the screens up and
>down, switching between applications at the speed of light, playing
>MOD files while formatting a disk, etc. But my friends just replied:
>"Cool, but what can I use it for?".
er.. how about "FUN" - anyone remember that? Can't computers be "fun" any more?
God I hope so..
>I had to agree with them later... when I bought a PC. People don't
>want what the Amiga can offer. They want software, and they want tons
>of it, they want browsers that handle the latest (non-standard) HTML
>codes, they want "WYSMBWYG" (What You See May Be What You Get)
Ah. Here i'll have to speak - Internet software is far from superior on the PC.
Fair enuff Java and HTML non-standard extentions are supported, but I've yet to
feel happy with a PC on the internet as opposed to my Amiga with
Ibrowse/Aweb/Voyager/AmIRC/AmFTP/AmTelnet/AmTerm etc etc.. The Amiga is just
so *good* at this :) Yup, it's pretty weird, but thats the case for me. I wont
choose my PC for being online.
>HTML editors, they want Word, they want Excel, they want to be able to
Some of us don't tho ;^) Word has eaten too many essays for my liking :)
>drag objects into a document and the document will automatically
>display it in its right format, they want the latest in games, they
>want integrated programming environments (if you have ever tried
>Visual C++ you know what I mean, SAS/C C++ for Amiga is nothing
Hmmm I like Visual, but it's far from perfect. Recent moves by MS might make it
more interesting. Object orientated programming can't be compared to non-object
orientated programming like that either. Some of the concepts do exist on the
Amiga, MUI offers fairly instant interface building (yes i know it's not the
same thing - but you see my point).
>compared to VC++), they want to be able to share documents and data
>with their co-workers, they want to be able to bring work home from
I don't want my colleagues laughing at my work ;)
>their office, they want to be able to display on-line help for the OS,
Working at home? you gotta be kidding..
>they want cheap system with lots of features and they want a cheese
>helmet...
Why cheese? Seems strange to me.
>And PC simply offers this at a lower price than what an Amiga would
>cost. PC is easier to use for the novice and it is more powerful for
>the professionals.
Huge sweeping statements here. Pricing you're right about. PC's can bedevil
novices as much as any machine - look at the market for support personnel ;)
I've always found (as a professional) the Amiga to be a 'powerful' environment
to work within. Perhaps you need to define 'powerful' for me ?
>But the Amiga people are too narrow-minded to see this... Stop
I'll thank you not to level that one at me. Most of us aren't - in fact much
less so than the PC people who seem to believe anything MS put out. We're well
aware of what both the PC and the Amiga can do. It's hard to imagine an Amiga
user out there who hasn't seen decent PC running, it's not hard to imagine a PC
user who's not seen a decent spec Amiga. This is the inbalance in the whole
issue that causes so much grief. IMHO. :)
Why the PC lot even care enough to resort to debating the issue with people who
already *know* whats going on it's beyond me. Perhaps they just need to meet
the right girl. I don't know.. It's very worrying.
>whining! If your Amiga does what you want, then keep it. If it
Yup, seems fair so far..
>doesn't, then buy another computer. Don't flame other people who
Or decide whether the next years developments will persuade you to hang
on for a little longer.
>abandon the Amiga - they do it for a reason. Amiga is not a religion
>(it seems to be for some...unfortunately) and you don't have to hate
>everybody that does not follow the same "religion" as you do...
I think some people just need someone to hate. I don't hate anyone, aside
from those who endlessly expect me to conform to their views.
>All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
>not do you any good...
Yes, it was a little bit sad :)
>Get it?
The Amiga or the PC ?
:)
Just kidding..
Tim
tim
KH>> To be frank, I don't know why you guys even bother with this thread.
>'cos it's fun :)
KH>> All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
KH>> not do you any good...
>OK. Point taken. After all, it's not like people who don't want the thread
>can't just ignore it I suppose... ;)
>TTFN,
>Keith.
>P.S. Mouse Amiga mouse-pointer looks much nicer than the Windows one
>does... ;)
But it *does* it's this cool little hand thing... oh damn.. i just bit ;)
Tim
John Bittner
In article <782.6997...@gulftel.com>, CMM <tu...@gulftel.com> wrote:
>Oh..right John! It seems that you are applying Microsofts definition of true
>pre-emptive multitasking as compared to reality and the rest of the worlds
>definition!
is a true prioritized pre-emptive multitasking OS just as the AmigaOS
is.
John Bittner
Zuma Group, Inc.
http://www.zumagroup.com
Ketil Hunn
On 27 Feb 97 21:10:21 +0000 tim <dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I've always found (as a professional) the Amiga to be a 'powerful' environment
>to work within. Perhaps you need to define 'powerful' for me ?
With powerful I mean "do more in a less time". Take Visual C++ for
example. It is so easy to program a multiwindow texteditor with search
and replace functions that it takes you less than two minutes (not
kidding!). Try doing the same things on an Amiga... And for the
walk-up user: try inserting a spreadsheet or a flow-chart in a
document. In Win95 it is only as hard as moving the mouse, and if you
want to edit the object, just doubleclick on it and your wordprocessor
will open the right application and let you edit it. It is not that
easy on the Amiga... at least it wasn't when I owned an Amiga...
>We're well aware of what both the PC and the Amiga can do.
I'm aware of that. But there are so many complaints about Win95 from
Amiga owners. It is like there exist a golden rule: if you own an
Amiga you have to hate Win95. It's like everything about Win95 sucks
and Amiga is perfect (hmrf, need I say more than "gadtools")... I
would like to see some Amiga fanatics open their eyes and see that
there are good things about the Win/NT OS too... :)
And since you asked; I still keep an eye on certain Amiga newsgroups
since I once owned an Amiga. I used to be a fan of the Amiga myself
and I would like to know where the Amiga is heading... Unfortunately,
I read the newsgroups less and less frequently, mostly because there's
not much happening on the Amiga scene that interests me anymore... :(
(But that calculater-size thread caught me eye... ;-) )
Kuukankorpi Perttu
Ketil Hunn (ke...@sis.pitt.edu) wrote:
: On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:29:23 +0100 Andre Paulsberg <an...@applause.no>
: The C= 64 people said the same thing: "Our computer will never die, as
: long as there are people out there supporting it - it will never die".
: It didn't last long though.. I'm sure the Amiga is going to last
: longer than the C= 64 did, but you will see a decrease of Amiga
: fanatics every year...
They (more or less fanatics) released several DOOM-clones for C64 well
over two years ago.
: >They've been doing it for years, people just don't seem to be aiming
: >for the future when they buy computers. All they want is what their
: >next door freind have, yesterdays computer.
: And what is the Amiga then? 5-year old technology... :)
So ? PC is 20 year old techology. Okay, 34 years, or when was the
transistor invented ?
--
Computer science student at Tampere University Of Technology
www.iki.fi/~pera pe...@iki.fi --> Perttu.Ku...@cc.tut.fi
C128,A500/1+2MB/120MB/2.4kbps,P90/32MB/3GB/28.8kbps
700 meter DISKNET --> A1200/030'50/18MB/1GB
10 km DISKNET --> A1200/060'50/18MB/1GB
Jernej Pecjak
Now, I find this fascinating. Every time a PC user tells something about PC
beating Aiga up, I must download three times as much mail as the day before.
If some PC user who was amiga user once says that, it is even worse.
I can not see why people keep responding to such flames.
You, PC user: If you want to feel good that you shitched machines, feel good,
but do not put down Amiga, because you must find something in PC. If you do,
you won't be arguing here in this newsgroup.
You Amiga user, leave them alone. He made his mind, maybe he is sad he did or
he isn't, I do not know nor care. He made up his mind, he sold amiga to
someone who cares about it more. Now he has PC. Do not replay with 100 mails
(they are all similar to what I've read before). It does no good. Go to a
junior high and pursuade young children there. You might get effect, you won't
with this guy. I am really sick dl mail with the topics like: whose calculator
is more powerfull and smaller in size, which computer is better etc. If you
are satisfied, live your life, I mean both of you, PC and amiga user. You are
waisting my and other people bandwidth.
Please. Or move to comp.sys.amiga.I don't know what. I've heard of a newgroup
for this heroe acts of bravery (spitting on each other). I forgot it's name.
So please, cool off or move on!
Yours
Jernej
Tony
> Yes, I believe that Amiga will disappear within a few years. It is not
> a matter of IF, but WHEN. The support right now might be better than
> in years, but the fact that the computer is no longer manufactured and
> the fact that the world standard _is_ PC, Amiga _will_ die...
It will only disappear when there are no more being used. Until then...
you get the idea.
> And PC simply offers this at a lower price than what an Amiga would
> cost. PC is easier to use for the novice and it is more powerful for
> the professionals.
Oh the pc offers a lot of bang for the buck, but easier for the novice?
You are really stretching it. You know how many "novices" I have had to
bail out with pc's??? Too many for a system that is suppose to be so
easy. As for power, it does have.
> But the Amiga people are too narrow-minded to see this... Stop
> whining! If your Amiga does what you want, then keep it. If it
> doesn't, then buy another computer. Don't flame other people who
> abandon the Amiga - they do it for a reason. Amiga is not a religion
> (it seems to be for some...unfortunately) and you don't have to hate
> everybody that does not follow the same "religion" as you do...
You are right, the Amiga is not a religion. It is a computer. A tool to
be used. I didnt abandon the Amiga. I have 2 of them (Toasted/Opaled
TBC'ed, Zipped, SyQuested, SuperGened... etc.) along with a PC. They
both serve a purpose. For my video and animation, sorry, nothing is as
easy and as quick as an Amiga. For the web and other "mundane" tasks,
the pc works (also render Imagine and LW on it in addition to the
Amiga's).
Just my 2cents....
> All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
> not do you any good...
>
> Get it?
Tony
> The C= 64 people said the same thing: "Our computer will never die, as
> long as there are people out there supporting it - it will never die".
> It didn't last long though.. I'm sure the Amiga is going to last
> longer than the C= 64 did, but you will see a decrease of Amiga
> fanatics every year...
The C64 lasted for many years. It is the most popular "home" computer
ever. Look at what you were able to do with only 39k!!! Tight coding.
Not like what is out for the pc....
> That is not what I said either. I said it was easier for the novice to
> get started with the PC. That may not be because the OS is better, but
> it is better supported. The OS and other software is pre-installed,
> the user can get started right away. You got on-line help for the OS
> available from the desktop, etc.
Yeah.... wait till things start to happen with that pre-installed
stuff.... see what those novices do then... and it WILL happen.
> Is there on-line help for the OS in 3.1? Nope. Does the Amiga come
> with an internet package (as standard)? Nope.
You pay for the internet package when you buy the software. It aint
for free.
> >Every time I install SW on a PC I have no control over it's placement,
> >meaning long and hard hours of cleanup operations to remove this SW
> >if I decide to change it.
>
> You don't have full control even on Amiga. The installation program
> can copy files wherever it wants to on your Amiga. Of course you can
> log the installation, but that you can do on a PC as well...
Gee.. whenever I install using the Install on the Amiga I know exactly
where everything is going.
> Not true. As with the Amiga, there are some fanatics, but most people
> couldn't give a shit about where the software comes from as long as
> it's good. I am in fact happy to see Java on the arena - fit for fight
> against the world of Bill Gates... but that's another story.
Not true. How many MS lemmings bought the BETA version of Win95 WITHOUT
a chance for a free upgrade to the full release?? They PAID to beta
test the thing!!!
> And what is the Amiga then? 5-year old technology... :)
Nope.. older. Just like the stuff in the PC. The only thing that they
have done is speed up the processor. Brute force to accomplish what
the Amiga did with finesse. Oh, and once again, I own both....
tim
>pet...@combo.ganesha.com (Dr. Peter Kittel) writes:
>>But only for *very* simple math. If you want it to do elegantly, you do:
>>assign calc rx "say []"
>>and then invoke it e.g. with
>>calc 2+3*4
>>This gives correctly 14. When you try 'eval 2+3*4', it says 20, because
>>it doesn't obey operator precedence.
>It works! COOL! (But I think that should be "alias" instead of "assign")
You lot better stop this thread right now else i'm going to lock you on the
special cupboard with all the big hairy spiders in it.
Tim
Charles E. Taylor IV
tim <dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk> writes:
:>P.S. Mouse Amiga mouse-pointer looks much nicer than the Windows one
:>does... ;)
:But it *does* it's this cool little hand thing... oh damn.. i just bit ;)
You've got me there. My Amiga's mouse pointer looks cooler than my
Xwindows pointer. Of course, my Xwindows pointer turns into a
skull-and-crossbones when I click "kill", so that has to count for
*some* "coolness" points ... ;-)
--
__ ___ _ _ _ | >>>>> cha...@hubcap.clemson.edu <<<<<
|_)o _ |/ | |_|\_/| / \|_) | '94 BS ChE, '96 BS Chemistry
| \||_ |\ | | | | |_\_/| \ |"So this is it, we're going to die!" --A.D.
Charles E. "Rick" Taylor, IV | http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~charlet/
Andre Weissflog
Ketil Hunn wrote:
> want integrated programming environments (if you have ever tried
> Visual C++ you know what I mean, SAS/C C++ for Amiga is nothing
> compared to VC++),
Hmm, I did and I beg to differ. SAS/C is a C compiler with a
complete set of command line tools, while VC++ is a fully
"Integrated Development Environment" (God, I hate this word!) with
a tiny little C compiler somewhere hidden on the other end.
It clutters the screen full with windows and doesn't let me use
the editor, debugger and tools that *I* want unless I remove this big,
slow and ugly mess called "Developer Studio" (which is 98% of VC++), and
just use the compiler through makefiles. So, if I just use nmake and
the c compiler, and the tools of my choice, what for stands the so
much praised "Visual"??? It just keeps me from getting actual work
done! Programming is about source code and debugging, not about
drawing "dialog boxes" and "cursor resources".
> But the Amiga people are too narrow-minded to see this... Stop
> whining! If your Amiga does what you want, then keep it. If it
> doesn't, then buy another computer. Don't flame other people who
> abandon the Amiga - they do it for a reason. Amiga is not a religion
> (it seems to be for some...unfortunately) and you don't have to hate
> everybody that does not follow the same "religion" as you do...
>
Wise words, I just use the machine which fits my needs. And besides
my good old A3000 I have a well equipped PC on my desk. The
"everyday" work is done on the Amiga, just because it has been
so damn personalized over the years with shell and arexx scripts,
toolmanager docks and so on that in the end it is simply more powerful
for real work then the PC even if it's 20x slower and doesn't
have the latest web browser installed. The dilemma is just that
there's no machine which could replace my 3000 as my "personal
computer", and I tried Mac,SGI,OS/2,Linux,Win95,WinNT, did
I forget something? What I didn't check out until now is pOS and
BeOS, and I hope I won't be disappointed when I do.
> All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
> not do you any good...
>
> Get it?
Sure, but there's also some real sense in those discussions, it
shows at least that one solution can't fit all people.
--
# Andre 'Floh' Weissflog <fl...@mkmk.in-chemnitz.de>
# Working On "Y.P.A. -- Your Personal Amok"
# Elvis Loves You!
CMM
>CMM <tu...@gulftel.com> wrote:
>>Oh..right John! It seems that you are applying Microsofts definition of true
>>pre-emptive multitasking as compared to reality and the rest of the worlds
>>definition! Hell Windows95 will barely run with Exchange. Come back to
>>reality, and forget what Bill Gates has said......I was always curious as to
>>why MS bought the rights to "Start Me Up"...when really all it does over and
>>over and over and over again....is say "make a grown man cry." I guess you
>>also believe that Win95 has "plug and play?" This is a good joke as well...
>>
>As a previous Amiga owner I have to defend the PC in most of the
>aspects that Ketil points out. I also must agree that the multitasking
>is not preemtive according to some definitions, but that it works
>pretty well considering it's a system that tries to be compatible with
>earlier systems Win 3.1 and to actually still be able to run old 8086
>program for those who desire that.
>This is exactly that has driven the PC to be the market leader system,
>and more specifically Microsoft's OS. A good business can't just tell
>it's customers to take a hike and buy all their software again for
>this new OS, and that is why Win95 still has its quirks.
Just a matter of time before they do do this.
>According to
>articles I've read, still 80% of business run Win 3.1, and companies
>still produce Win 3.1 programs. But this is degrading as most do the
>transfer to Win95.
I recently read an article that stated that Windows95 was a failure and the only
thing that kept it from being a failure of epic proportions is the fact that it
is liscensed to and bundled with the millions of PC's that have been sold since
it raised its ugly head...anyway the article goes on to say that many customers
are demanding computers with Win3.1 on it instead and that manufacturers are
attempting to accomodate this demand.....well maybe they will get it right in
Win97....but I doubt it. "Billy Bob" Gates...ummmm, it's always been hard for me
to trust anyone who's definition of a haircut is....to put a bowl on your head
and have somone cut around the bottom. Also, I have always been curious over
Microsofts choice for the 'Win95 Theme Song"...it says over and over and over...
make a grown man cry, you make a grown man cry. Without any doubt there is true
meaning in this song...
CMM
>In article <782.6997...@gulftel.com>, CMM <tu...@gulftel.com> wrote:
>>Oh..right John! It seems that you are applying Microsofts definition of true
>>pre-emptive multitasking as compared to reality and the rest of the worlds
>>definition!
>is a true prioritized pre-emptive multitasking OS just as the AmigaOS
>is.
I'm sorry John, but regardless of how much you want this to be true it is NOT!
Windows95 will barely run with Exchange running in the background much less
anything else. It is not 32bit as most of the code is 16bit, it initially
boots in MS/DOS...which curiously enough the Win95 splash screen hides this
ugly DOS boot screen? Why not show this beauty?
Anyway, back to the original post..you are unfortunately using "Billy Bob"
Gates definition of pre-emptive multitasking and Win95 does NOT multitask like
the Amiga nor by any other definition of "true pre-emptive multitasking" other
than Microsofts! It is a cobbled up mess...and what is amazing is that it
doesn't crash more than the 7.3 time per day that it averages now! I recently
read an article that stated that Win95 was a huge failure, and the only thing
that kept it from being a failure of epic proportions is the fact that it has
been liscensed and bundled with millions of PC sold for home computers since
it reared its ugly head...It also stated that over 80% of all businesses still
use Win3.1..and that many customers were demanding machines with Win3.1
pre-installed and that many manufacturers were attempting to meet this demand.
It does give the PC user a taste of what they have been missing all these
years but it still is a "turkey" and a complete failure by most accounts I've
read.
But...Bill Gates said it was the next step, a revolutionary 32bit (LOL) "true
pre-emptive OS....so I guess this must be so, I mean he is the guy who single
handedly brought us the computer isn't he?
CMM
>On 27 Feb 97 21:10:21 +0000 tim <dan...@angeldos.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I've always found (as a professional) the Amiga to be a 'powerful'
>>environment to work within. Perhaps you need to define 'powerful' for me ?
>With powerful I mean "do more in a less time". Take Visual C++ for
>example. It is so easy to program a multiwindow texteditor with search
>and replace functions that it takes you less than two minutes (not
>kidding!). Try doing the same things on an Amiga... And for the
>walk-up user: try inserting a spreadsheet or a flow-chart in a
>document. In Win95 it is only as hard as moving the mouse, and if you
>want to edit the object, just doubleclick on it and your wordprocessor
>will open the right application and let you edit it. It is not that
>easy on the Amiga... at least it wasn't when I owned an Amiga...
>>We're well aware of what both the PC and the Amiga can do.
>I'm aware of that. But there are so many complaints about Win95 from
>Amiga owners. It is like there exist a golden rule: if you own an
>Amiga you have to hate Win95. It's like everything about Win95 sucks
>and Amiga is perfect (hmrf, need I say more than "gadtools")... I
>would like to see some Amiga fanatics open their eyes and see that
>there are good things about the Win/NT OS too... :)
Yes..there are good things in WinNT...However getting it up and keeping running
is another story...one of the Internet Providers in this area has just recently
started going back to some of their UNIX servers, because they have had so much
trouble with WinNT...and the other one is considering going to WinNT...this is
scary! The overhead is rediculous..and yes RAM prices have dropped dramatically
but that is not the point? What if they hadn't...its also been a good thing for
Win95 because it has a serious problem with overhead itself...
I recently read an article stating that Windows95 was a failure, and the only
thing that kept it from being a horrible failure is that it has been shipped on
and bundled with millions of PC's. It is terrible...and then people want to
say...but it does true pre-emptive multitasking, and the damn thing will barely
run with Exchange running in the background. It is not a 32bit OS as
claimed..most of the code is in 16bit, it initally boots in dos...which is
hidden by the Windows95 splash screen, "Plug & Play"...emmm, more like "Plug &
Pray", and on and on and on. OS/2 is much better than Win95 IMHO, but "Billy
Bob" Gates did not tell all the PC's users that it was a revolutionary step
computing and that once again....MicroSoft was leading the way.....
>And since you asked; I still keep an eye on certain Amiga newsgroups
>since I once owned an Amiga. I used to be a fan of the Amiga myself
must have lost your mind! :)
>and I would like to know where the Amiga is heading... Unfortunately,
>I read the newsgroups less and less frequently, mostly because there's
>not much happening on the Amiga scene that interests me anymore... :(
>(But that calculater-size thread caught me eye... ;-) )
>____________________________________________________________________
Matthew Schinckel
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Keith Blakemore-Noble wrote:
>
> P.S. Mouse Amiga mouse-pointer looks much nicer than the Windows one
> does... ;)
And my BusyPointer (SleepingPointers 1.0a unreg) kicks butt on the ugly Win95
Pointer+Hourglass one - not that I see it much using BrowserII instead of
Workbench...
---
Matthew Schinckel - ma...@null.net Shapeshifter #2813
TopFerm...@beer.com (Yay Coopers Ale!)
Keith Blakemore-Noble
On or around Thu, 27 Feb 97, Ketil Hunn is alledged to have muttered
something along the lines of -
KH> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:29:23 +0100 Andre Paulsberg <an...@applause.no>
KH> wrote:
KH> >Every time I install SW on a PC I have no control over it's placement,
KH> >meaning long and hard hours of cleanup operations to remove this SW
KH> >if I decide to change it.
KH>
KH> You don't have full control even on Amiga. The installation program
KH> can copy files wherever it wants to on your Amiga. Of course you can
KH> log the installation, but that you can do on a PC as well...
I see. Guess you've never used the Expert mode of an Amiga installer then!
Ho hum,
Keith.
--
Http://www.personal.u-net.com/~amiga Team AMIGA
And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around.
Victor Ducedre
From a message by: Ketil Hunn <ke...@sis.pitt.edu)
dated: 27-Feb-97, 14:27:39
>The C= 64 people said the same thing: "Our computer will never die, as
>long as there are people out there supporting it - it will never die".
>It didn't last long though..
You may wish to check with people still using C64's, who also currently
enjoy fast CPU's, high-speed modems, hard-drive storage and internet
applications. Dead platforms don't usually get so much hardware/software
development.
>I didn't say that MS didn't invent the functions in their 'own' OS, so
>what's your point? You don't like Windows because it stole some ideas
>from other OS (and who knows, maybe even AmigaOS)?
It only becomes objectionable because MS tends to attach its own buzzword
to a concept and, by not acknowledging its origins, appears to pass it off as
their own idea. (To be fair, MS is not the only company with this behaviour.)
Actually, I'm hard pressed to think of any major element of Windows that
didn't come from some other platform, including the WIMP GUI itself...
(I will voluntarily take back this statement if/when I'm proven wrong :)
(quoting Andre Paulsberg)
>>A computer for everybody is NOT a professional computer, spesialy not
>>with a totaly useless OS like WIN95.
>That is not what I said either. I said it was easier for the novice to
>get started with the PC. That may not be because the OS is better, but
>it is better supported.
In what ways do you feel there is better support for the OS, and how does
that translate to "easier for the novice"?
> The OS and other software is pre-installed,
>the user can get started right away. You got on-line help for the OS
>available from the desktop, etc.
Most Amiga users with hard drives on their systems got them pre-installed
with the OS (unless they're installing them themselves, but if they can do that
much, they probably know how to install the software itself).
And if *immediate* startup is required, you can boot from a floppy... :)
>Is there on-line help for the OS in 3.1? Nope.
Is there anything in AmigaOS that is so difficult to use and understand
that online help is necessary?
>Does the Amiga come with an internet package (as standard)? Nope.
When AmigaOS 3.1 came out, internet software did not come as standard with
Windows, either.
>And what is the Amiga then? 5-year old technology... :)
Mostly older than that... :)
--
Victor Ducedre That is my theory, it is mine, and
vic...@netrover.com it belongs to me, and I own it,
and what it is, too.
Victor Ducedre
>With powerful I mean "do more in a less time". Take Visual C++ for
>example. It is so easy to program a multiwindow texteditor with search
>and replace functions that it takes you less than two minutes (not
>kidding!).
Having never seen/used Visual C++, I'm curious. (No, seriously :) )
In creating this text editor of which you speak in under two minutes, how
much actual programming is being done? Do you need a full understanding of C++,
OOP, inheritance, etc., or are you only pasting together various pre-made
objects in a way so as to do the task?
Can you see the resulting source code, and go through it and learn the
smallest details of how the program works? Is it documented enough to be
understood? Can you go through it and optimize it so it does the job in the
best way?
Sorry for all the questions. I'm from the school that feels the need for
an understanding of the machines and the langauges and the concepts, where a
programmer translates an idea into a program using their own knowledge and
skill, not somebody else's. I think a development system that makes it easy for
an average user to create programs tends to create a lot of average programs, as
I think AMOS proved a few years back.
> Try doing the same things on an Amiga... And for the
>walk-up user: try inserting a spreadsheet or a flow-chart in a
>document. In Win95 it is only as hard as moving the mouse, and if you
>want to edit the object, just doubleclick on it and your wordprocessor
>will open the right application and let you edit it. It is not that
>easy on the Amiga... at least it wasn't when I owned an Amiga...
I'm sure if these features are needed badly enough by enough users, they
can be developed. Keep in mind we don't have a multi-billion-dollar company
(eg., MS) developing for us, but we do have a strong developer base amongst our
users.
I myself am not too concerned if I need to take extra time to do something
like these. I'm too "hands-on" to let the computer do *everything* for me. :)
>I'm aware of that. But there are so many complaints about Win95 from
>Amiga owners. It is like there exist a golden rule: if you own an
>Amiga you have to hate Win95. It's like everything about Win95 sucks
>and Amiga is perfect (hmrf, need I say more than "gadtools")... I
>would like to see some Amiga fanatics open their eyes and see that
>there are good things about the Win/NT OS too... :)
Now, don't pick on gadtools! :) It's a lot better than existed pre-2.0
(ie. nothing), and it gets the job done well enough.
I don't think I live by your golden rule above (except for saying I really
hate using Windows 3.1). I *want* to learn about features, good or bad, of any
platform/OS, as long as they are fact-based and not flame-based.
William KING
AP> MicroSoft is cloning the superb WorkBench/MAC,
Small point but cloning implies exact copy, this M$ is not capable of.
William KING
Chris Handley
In article <3250.699...@gulftel.com>, tu...@gulftel.com says...
>>To be frank, I don't know why you guys even bother with this thread.
>>The PC people will never convince the Amiga people that PC is a cool
>>computer and vice versa. The fight will go on and on until Amiga dies
>>and PC lives on.
I'm sorry that you believe that. I also believe that the CURRENT Amiga's will
died eventually, but I also believe that some of these new RISC machines/OSs
(BeOS,p-OS, PIOS-One, A\Box, etc) have a BIG change to oust the PC..
The wind of change has finally come again. We are again at a cross roads
where EVERYTHING will change. You may not see it yet, but most people don't
until it has already happened. I'm sure you don't believe me - I don't ask
you to - but that is what I believe, and I see enough evidence of it.
All other computers that became big market leads eventually died. So will the
PC, because it is still held-back by backward compatibility, fragmented
architecture, a memory/speed hungry OS/GUI, and no guiding owner company to
get rid of these problems. The lots-of-companies-selling-PCs made the PC the
success it is; it is also it's biggest problem.
I do not believe it will happen overnight - but it will happen. It MUST
happen. If it does not, the computer industry will have been put back 5-15
years. The PC is hard to use (even with Win95 - look at all those
books/videos on the subject), has a fragmented architecture which causes
problems with much new software/hardware installations, and wastes so much CPU
power it nees 100+MIPs (approx) and 32Mb to be properly useable with Win95.
I use PCs *alot* (inc.Pentiums with 16/32Mb ram), and I do not find that they
are easy to use DESPITE much experience with them. I know how to get around
SOME of their problems & idosyncracies - but they are there, and slow me down.
You think PCs are modern? Every time you boot-up you are presented with a 70s
black&white DOS screen with crap that the User doesn't need to know (unless
something goes wrong - he he).
On the other hand, I generally find the Amiga quite stable, very configurable
(and an easy learning curve), and most importantly:
My Amiga does what I want, without getting in my way (usually).
Go and read Carl Sassenrath's web page about "Personal Computing" (etc) if you
want a better explanation than I can (www.sassenrath.com).
You should also go and look at one of Squid's best pages
"http://users.compassworks.com/~squid/amiga/articles961214.html", where he
does a very good job of explaining his point of view (which I share alot
with).
>>Yes, I believe that Amiga will disappear within a few years. It is not
>>a matter of IF, but WHEN. The support right now might be better than
>>in years, but the fact that the computer is no longer manufactured and
>>the fact that the world standard _is_ PC, Amiga _will_ die...
The PC is & has been the standard. That does NOT mean it will always be the
standard. Just because it has achieved more unit sales than previous
'standards', that does not invalidate my argument. It just means that it's
death will be a slower, more protracted, and painful one.
>>I am not saying that this is good, because we certainly need
>>competitors to Windows and NT. The sad thing is that Amiga is not
>>considered to be a competitor to the PC.
Only because the Amiga ran into trouble about the time that PCs were
really taking off. It hasn't yet recovered, maybe it won't. Other BETTER
computers, that are at least the spiritual descendants of the Amiga, will
take-off where it left. I don't know which one will, but there are enough
people who believe it can be done that it will happen.
>>I had an Amiga 3000 for 5 years and I released several freeware
>>programs, one shareware program and several source codes. I was an
>>Amiga fanatic. I even refused to buy a PC because I hated Win3.11 so
>>much. I tried to convince my friends to buy Amiga's instead of PC's. I
>>showed them how cool my Amiga looked; dragging the screens up and
>>down, switching between applications at the speed of light, playing
>>MOD files while formatting a disk, etc. But my friends just replied:
>>"Cool, but what can I use it for?".
Well, they are stupid, or your arguments/knowledge weren't up to it. There
are good applications enough, there's not that much that MOST
(`average`) people can do on PCs that they can't on the Amiga.
If you could come-up with a list of non-esoteric applications, I would be
interested. And 2-3 isn't much, if thats all you can manage.
>>I had to agree with them later... when I bought a PC. People don't
That's your problem, not the Amigas.
>>want what the Amiga can offer. They want software, and they want tons
>>of it, they want browsers that handle the latest (non-standard) HTML
>>codes, they want "WYSMBWYG" (What You See May Be What You Get)
>>HTML editors, they want Word, they want Excel, they want to be able to
A HTML *editor* is used by may PC owners? You jest!
There's not much that Word can do that Wordworth 6 (or FinalWriter..) can't
do. Most people don't even use most of the features of Word (because they add
complex features that people don't use!).
Yes, the Amiga doesn't have an Excel - but it's not that far behind.
>>drag objects into a document and the document will automatically
>>display it in its right format, they want the latest in games, they
I'm not sure quite what you mean by "object" - but the Amiga has dragndrop,
and uses it most of the time. Which program were you referring to?
Ok, so it doesn't have the latest wizz bang 3D game. Except for Quake of
course ;^) . Buy a PlayStation/Nintendo64. It will cost you less that a PC
with the necessary specs (and will cause you 1/100th of the trouble that a PC
game installation will give you). PC games are STILL generally MS-DOS, and
alot seem to have naff installers. Win95 doesn't help much (& can even
hinder).
>>want integrated programming environments (if you have ever tried
>>Visual C++ you know what I mean, SAS/C C++ for Amiga is nothing
What about StormC????? I'm not a C programmer myself, but I it's supposed to
be pretty damn good (and getting better quite quickly).
>>compared to VC++), they want to be able to share documents and data
>>with their co-workers, they want to be able to bring work home from
>>their office, they want to be able to display on-line help for the OS,
You can display on-line help from the Amiga's OS. Ever heard of AmigaGuide
documents? Any big Amiga application that requires it, usually has it (see
Wordworth, DOpus5.5, most MUI apps, etc). And of course MUI has help bubbles,
but not much software (except internet software) uses that.
>>they want cheap system with lots of features and they want a cheese
>>helmet...
I wouldn't call the Amiga expensive. Not as cheap as a PC sure, but not THAT
much more expensive. [The Amiga can uses the same harddrives, CD-drives,
monitors, mice/joysticks (with adapter), printers, etc that PCs use, and they
account for a large percentage of PC price. Amiga accelerators have also
dropped in price.]
Back when the Amiga was still being sold, most of your arguments would not
have hold - it's mainly the last year or two where PCs have started being
brought home where you might want to share data or use the same s/w.
Of course your arguments are a lot more convincing now, and if that is what
you NEED - fine. I have no problems with that. Just don't say the PC is
better at EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME.
>>And PC simply offers this at a lower price than what an Amiga would
>>cost. PC is easier to use for the novice and it is more powerful for
>>the professionals.
A PC is easier to use???? Don't make me laugh :-D . Get them to install a
piece of software/hardware by themselves, and watch them weep from conflicts,
Plug`N`Play Problems, and wrong answers to questions by the installer
(even despite reading the manual).
I've seen other people spend ages peering through manauls, trying to get rid
of that printer problem, find out how to get Win95 to do something, stop Win95
doing something, crash Win95, etc.
Maybe Amiga's aren't much easier in that you still need to read the manual,
but that's not my point. PCs have become TOO complicated, and they drop all
that at the users feet. At least Macs almost never have that problem.
I would say that the Amiga doesn't have such a problem - many things are
'hidden' until you become more experienced (which is the best way). And you
are virtually never asked to fiddle with batch-files/scripts by/for commercial
software.
Trying to explain why the PC is worse that the Amiga is difficult because
there are so many points, often minor ones. All those minor ones add up
though.
>>But the Amiga people are too narrow-minded to see this... Stop
I would hold that it is more likely that you are the one with a narrow mind -
although I can't blame you for buying a PC. Some people have to have what the
majority has (even if it's "a bit" worse). Occasionally there's a real, good
reason.
>>whining! If your Amiga does what you want, then keep it. If it
>>doesn't, then buy another computer. Don't flame other people who
>>abandon the Amiga - they do it for a reason. Amiga is not a religion
>>(it seems to be for some...unfortunately) and you don't have to hate
>>everybody that does not follow the same "religion" as you do...
There are certainly a few Amiga people with the wrong attitude, but you
shouldn't stick that on the majority. I don't know any Amiga owners
personally who have that attitude (they are usually far more knowledgable
about computers, which is why they didn't switch to a PC)
I haven't heard any "whining" lately - although if you visit csa.advocacy you
might expect that ;-)
>>All that "my calculator is smaller than your calculator"-stuff will
>>not do you any good...
>>Get it?
Ho. Ho. What an amazing wit you posses.
With the Amiga situation as it is now, I wouldn't advise anyone to buy an
Amiga (a difficult prospect in itself), but when it gets a new owner for more
than 5 seconds things could change. If they don't, I'll just buy an A\Box (or
whatever succeeds) instead.
Perhaps it's lucky you can't see my normal Email sig =:)
--
From Christopher Handley; Email: ela9...@sheffield.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------sig v2.71 A---------
A1200/Blizzard 040/40MHz/16Mb + PowerStation (SCSI: 540Mb Hd, 2.4 speed CD
drive, SyQuest EZ Flyer 230). Plus DOpus5.5, MUI, MWb2, MCP, XFH, TKG,...
AmigaQuake - the biggest thing since the death of C=.
Be prepared for a *MAJOR* shake-up of the Amiga games scene...
Predictions:- 040 accelerator sales double in the next 1.5-3 months;
Quake on cover of ALL Amiga mags; iD make an official response; (a bit) of
Amiga coverage in PC mags; 1000s of Amiga owners buy the commercial Quake!;
The Amiga games scene sees a (at least minor) revival; I will look very
stupid if none of this actually happens ;-)
John Bittner
In article <2011.6997...@gulftel.com>, CMM <tu...@gulftel.com> wrote:
>>In article <782.6997...@gulftel.com>, CMM <tu...@gulftel.com> wrote:
>>>Oh..right John! It seems that you are applying Microsofts definition of true
>>>pre-emptive multitasking as compared to reality and the rest of the worlds
>>>definition!
>>Nope. I'm applying the rest of the world's definition. Win '95
>>is a true prioritized pre-emptive multitasking OS just as the AmigaOS
>>is.
>
>I'm sorry John, but regardless of how much you want this to be true it is NOT!
>Windows95 will barely run with Exchange running in the background much less
>anything else.
connected to the internet on my 486 based machines without any lack
of utility. Your point's irrelevant any case since the performance a given
application has no relation to how multitasking is implemented.
>Anyway, back to the original post..
Yes, why don't you do that.
>you are unfortunately using "Billy Bob"
>Gates definition of pre-emptive multitasking and Win95 does NOT multitask like
>the Amiga nor by any other definition of "true pre-emptive multitasking" other
>than Microsofts!
Ok, what's your definition of true pre-emptive multitasking and how does it
differ from what you claim MS is using?
Don't give me this Windows is garbage the Amiga rules spew. Give me some
facts. Leave the other stuff over in advocacy where the lamers will be
impressed.
John Bittner
http://www.zumagroup.com