Why I am so sad ... The amiga story of the editor of AM

54 views
Skip to first unread message

Jernej Pecjak

unread,
Feb 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/13/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/14/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/15/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97
to

>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

unread,
Feb 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/17/97
to

In article <5e68lq$s...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aq...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Gregor) writes:

> 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

unread,
Feb 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/17/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

>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

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

>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

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

>>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

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

>vid.p...@guest.arnes.si (Jernej Pecjak) wrote:

>J

Oh yes.. you get so many 'features' with Win95 :)

Tim


Pieter-Jan Kuyten

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to


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

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

John G. 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.

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

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

Grim wrote:

>> 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

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

>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

With a 'light' 'small' 16MEG KERNEL :)

Tim


Dr. Peter Kittel

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

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/

Charlie Gibbs

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

>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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

>> >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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

>In article <85646273...@aestiva.demon.co.uk>, da...@durge.org
>says...
>> 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...
>>

>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

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97