BABYLON 5: They`re using crap PC`s
Philip
From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
could create a bad image.
VISCORP GET OFF YOUR ASS AND MAKE THEM CHANGE THERE MIND, GIVE THEM
AMIGA`S. You bought the stock didn`t you so give them some A4000T`s
and some encouragement by offering help.
Lurker`s Guide To B5 contains the full details. So don`t tell me I`m
spreading rumours.
______________AMIGA FLAME________________
============HATES DIGITISTER=============
++++++++++++++HATES PC`S+++++++++++++++++
____________ENJOYS AMIGAS_______________
~~~~~~~SUPPORTER OF DEVELOPERS~~~~~~
Philip
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
Jonny Johansson
>From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
>The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
>now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
>B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
>could create a bad image.
Hmm, so they're taking it off Foundation imaging? But haven't Foundation also
switched to PCs for speed reasons?
Also the actual rendering was always done using Alphas across a network
AFAIK. A flaw in design ment, that rendering was halted, while a finished
frame was being transfrerred back to he Amiga.
Anyway, the 3D modelling of B5 IS Ron Thornton isn't it? So if Babylonian
productions throw him out, there'll be a change in style too?
Michael Pedersen
Philip wrote:
> From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
> The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
> now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
> B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
> could create a bad image.
HUH? I have an OLD moviemag, where the designers of the gfx to B5, said
that they left the Amigas after the FIRST season. Because they got more
money, they switched to workstations...
> VISCORP GET OFF YOUR ASS AND MAKE THEM CHANGE THERE MIND, GIVE THEM
> AMIGA`S. You bought the stock didn`t you so give them some A4000T`s
> and some encouragement by offering help.
How can the A4000 compete with workstations?
> Lurker`s Guide To B5 contains the full details. So don`t tell me I`m
> spreading rumours.
Sounds like I got it wrong, or the Guide got it wrong... Im going to
read the article again...
Bye,
----------------- _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ --
Michael Pedersen _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/
M...@bio.aau.dk _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/
Team AMIGA _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
------------- _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ -----
Paul Copsey
Philip (phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk) wrote:
:
: From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
B5 has been using PC's since S2, S3 certainly.
Paul
--
** No mail accepted from interramp.com **
Chuck out the chintz, puke on IKEA
Jeff Madge
Philip (phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk) wrote:
: From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
: We`ve got to stop this. B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s
: capabilities and now this could create a bad image.
Uh, sorry to break this to you, but B5 hasn't used the Amiga hardware
since about the start of the second season. As far as I know, they still
use the same software, but its been ported to the PC's. The decision to
not use Foundation for the upcoming season has nothing to do with the
hardware used.
Jeff
P.S. What does this have to do with 'comp.sys.amiga.games'?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Madge |
<jma...@io.org> |
| Finger for PGP Public Key
MARC EDWARD FORRESTER
Philip wrote:
> From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
> B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now
> this could create a bad image.
Can't we just mutter about how much better the
graphics were back in the good old days? :>
TYMOTHY DJ
Michael Pedersen <m...@bio.aau.dk> writes:
>> From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
>> The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
>> now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
>> B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
>> could create a bad image.
Aren't Amiga people aware that the only people who
cared about this tidbit about Babylon 5 was Amiga
people. This got *no* press before the fact (in
non Amiga mags) so why would it create a "bad image"?
(Something that the Amiga already suffers from in
the Silicon Valley).
Besides Babylon 5 isn't a good show anyway.
So don't sweat it. No one outside the Amiga
world is really paying attention to the Amiga
anyway.
Tymothy DJ
Janne Jalkanen
>> From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
>> The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
>> now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
>> B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
>> could create a bad image.
>
>HUH? I have an OLD moviemag, where the designers of the gfx to B5, said
>that they left the Amigas after the FIRST season. Because they got more
>money, they switched to workstations...
Yes. The story goes like this:
When Foundation Imaging was a small company and was contracted to do
the Babylon 5 graphics they used Video Toasters (ie Amiga 4000)
machines and Lightwave. They made the effects for the pilot episode
(and got an Emmy) and for the first season of Babylon 5. During this
time they among other things, tested the Newtek Screamer board and
stuff.
For the second season they changed into PC-based systems and DEC
Alphas after Lightwave was ported to these platforms. The change was
necessary because Amigas were simply too slow. The also started doing
contract work on other shows, like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star
Trek: Voyager.
Foundation also made the effects for the third season of Babylon 5,
but for the fourth season they were demanding too much money and thus
the producers of Babylon 5 decided to switch the company. This new (I
don't know its name yet) company will be producing all CGI for season
four using PC workstations (allegedly) and Lightwave. Some old
Foundation people will be joining the new company to make the effects.
>How can the A4000 compete with workstations?
For this particular purpose: No way. Sad but true.
--
Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
Janne.J...@iki.fi /// ! life has a flavor
<*> \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
> The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
> now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
> B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
> could create a bad image.
Uh, say what? I think you're confusing companies with computers. I don't know
the story, (I was under the impression that they shifted to p100's with LW 4.0)
but it doesn't matter who makes the graphics, they're gonna use PC's (or
alphas, or whatever) - the Amiga version of Lightwave 5.0 is lacking features
that the PC etc versions are not, and unlike 4.0, has no features that PC etc
versions lack. On top of this, a maxed-out Amiga is not as fast as the other
platforms (and probably costs more too), a raptor is for rendering frames, it
doesn't make the program more interactive for the animator...
I think the priority of these people is to make damn good work, and that means
that it is not their priority to showcase a machine. (And if anything should be
showcased, it is the _animators_, or perhaps the software, certainly not the
brand of calculator they use).
As you may have guessed, I think you're over-reacting, I also think your focus
on only the hardware to the exclusion of all other relevant factors (most of
which are much _more_ relevant) is the attitude that put the Amiga where it is
today. (Not to mention gave us Amiga users one hell of a bad reputation as
religious zealots, slaves to an overwhelming hatred of any other machine).
Unfortunately, it looks like this reputation may be well deserved. You'll
excuse me if I try to transcend this and try and get a cheap feeling of moral
superiority :-)
No flames please, but I welcome any corrections.
In case you didn't notice, I feel kind of strongly on the issue of whether
talent lies in the machine or in the user, and this subject stirred that. So
perhaps I'm a raving fanatic in my own way :)
Mike Dijkema
In article <R.8433387...@mailman.dnet.co.uk> phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk (Philip) writes:
>From: phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk (Philip)
>Subject: BABYLON 5: They`re using crap PC`s
>Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 20:52:54 GMT
>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
>The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
>now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
>B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
>could create a bad image.
>VISCORP GET OFF YOUR ASS AND MAKE THEM CHANGE THERE MIND, GIVE THEM
>AMIGA`S. You bought the stock didn`t you so give them some A4000T`s
>and some encouragement by offering help.
>Lurker`s Guide To B5 contains the full details. So don`t tell me I`m
>spreading rumours.
>______________AMIGA FLAME________________
>============HATES DIGITISTER=============
>++++++++++++++HATES PC`S+++++++++++++++++
>____________ENJOYS AMIGAS_______________
>~~~~~~~SUPPORTER OF DEVELOPERS~~~~~~
That's stupid, I would use DEC Alpha machines, if the only thing you run is
Lightwave then the Dec is the fastest choice. By comparison, the DEC Alpha
with 128 M memory renders about 70 to 100 times faster then my Amiga.
Mike.
Gavan Moran
phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk (Philip) wrote:
>From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
>The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
>now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
>B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
>could create a bad image.
Its been a long time since the gfx in B5 were Amiga rendered ... do you
think they've been sitting around A4000s the last four years? The fact is
that even a below-entry level 75mHz Pentium can out-render the fastest
Amiga. There is (and has been for a long time) no reason to use Amigas as
rendering machines over PCs or PowerPCs.
Gavan
--
email: gmo...@nyx.net | "There can be only one"
or ga...@gavan.edsj.ulst.ac.uk | - the Highlander
misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
In article <1996Sep24.141312@cantva>, misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>> From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
>> The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
>> now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
>> B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
>> could create a bad image.
> I think the priority of these people is to make damn good work, and that means
> that it is not their priority to showcase a machine.
> [snip]
> No flames please, but I welcome any corrections.
Okay... but I -am- getting vibrations from my 1200 that suggest
to me that I must kill you...
Nathan the sane.
misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
>> No flames please, but I welcome any corrections.
>
> Okay... but I -am- getting vibrations from my 1200 that suggest
> to me that I must kill you...
>
> Nathan the sane.
What did I say? Ok, I admit that I believe (or try to believe) some things that
are out of line with what the more die-hard users believe, but it is _all_ a
logical consequence of my belief that the merit for any of my work belongs to
_me_, regardless of what tools I use. (Computer art etc is having enough trouble
establishing itself as genuine art, and I think it is, hence I vehermently
disagree with people in the _computer_ camp who try to tell everyone that the
merit belongs elsewhere (eg in the software or computer. If anything, it would
lie in the users choice of using those tools...)). I also think there is ample
evidence (perhaps proof) to support this in the fact that I can do the work
without any computer at all, and have the work retain the same merit. (It's
just a lot slower and less fun :)
You wouldn't want me to be a hyprocrite <sp?> would you? :-)
Errr, as to making this on-topic...uh... yeah - I extend my views on computer
art and craft to encompass the production of games. (whew, that was close... )
:-)
Steffen Haeuser
jmadge%io.org@INTERNET wrote :
>
> Philip (phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
> : We`ve got to stop this. B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s
> : capabilities and now this could create a bad image.
>
> Uh, sorry to break this to you, but B5 hasn't used the Amiga hardware
> since about the start of the second season. As far as I know, they still
Correct.
> use the same software, but its been ported to the PC's. The decision to
Correct, too. The name of the software is Lightwave, BTW, It is used by a lot
of Science Fiction shows... Voyager uses it too, and Seaquest used it (here it
were 100% Amigas). The software is available on Amiga, PC under Windows, and
some Unix systems (i think SGI) and under Windows NT, AFAIK.
Steffen Haeuser
MaXiM
Mike Dijkema wrote in comp.sys.amiga.games about "Re: BABYLON 5: They`re
using crap PC`s":
> In article <R.8433387...@mailman.dnet.co.uk>
> phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk (Philip) writes:
> >From: phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk (Philip) Subject: BABYLON 5: They`re
> >using crap PC`s Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 20:52:54 GMT
>
> >Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>
>
> >company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so now
> >the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this could
> >create a bad image.
>
> >AMIGA`S. You bought the stock didn`t you so give them some A4000T`s
> >and some encouragement by offering help.
>
> >Lurker`s Guide To B5 contains the full details. So don`t tell me I`m
> >spreading rumours.
>
> is Lightwave then the Dec is the fastest choice. By comparison, the DEC
> Alpha with 128 M memory renders about 70 to 100 times faster then my
> Amiga.
My Amiga (A3000/060/50) also renders 100 times faster than my other
Amiga (A500/000/7). :)
--
.oO[ MaXiM / BUG-FREE YOUTH ]Oo.
Where's the UNITY ?
Power-Amiga-Developers unite and build something wonderful!
misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
In article <1996Sep25.132238@cantva>, misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>>> No flames please, but I welcome any corrections.
>> Okay... but I -am- getting vibrations from my 1200 that suggest
>> to me that I must kill you...
>> Nathan the sane.
> What did I say? Ok, I admit that I believe (or try to believe) some things that
> are out of line with what the more die-hard users believe, but it is _all_ a
> .....
> [snip]
> ...
> art and craft to encompass the production of games. (whew, that was close... )
> :-)
Wow, sorry... I didn't mean to invoke such a response...
(maybe I should've put a smiley-face at the end of that kill bit.)
I was just trying to sound stereotypical-PC-hating-Amiga-fanatic-ish
because it sounded like a fun thing to do.
Actually I kinda agreed with you...
(I want more memory so I can get back into rendering... *sigh*)
Cheers,
Nathan.
PS:
You got a name? The way the Canty. news program only quotes our misc
number really bugs me sometimes... kinda like everything else the
ComputerServices Dept. uses. :-)
PPS:
My therapist tells me if I ignore the voices, and take it all out on
my cat that that's much healthier. :-)
Terrence Pitts
On Thu 26-Sep-1996 9:39a, Steffen Haeuser wrote:
SH> gmoran%nyx.net@INTERNET wrote :
SH> >
SH> > phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk (Philip) wrote:
SH> >
SH> >
SH> >>From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
SH> >>The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
SH> >>now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
SH> >>B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
SH> >>could create a bad image.
SH> >
SH> > Its been a long time since the gfx in B5 were Amiga rendered ... do
SH> you
SH> > think they've been sitting around A4000s the last four years? The fact
SH> is
SH> > that even a below-entry level 75mHz Pentium can out-render the fastest
SH> > Amiga. There is (and has been for a long time) no reason to use Amigas
SH> as
SH> > rendering machines over PCs or PowerPCs.
SH> It can't. The Cyberstorm060 Amiga is faster than a 75 MHz Pentium. But
SH> well,
SH> the Pentium is cheaper... :(
SH> Steffen Haeuser
A Amiga4000 with a '060/50's speed is closer to a 90 Mhz Pentium.
Yeah, it still comes down to price. Even if the Amiga's were faster you would
still have to address graphic card prices, like a Retina Z-III costing $900?
You can buy a open-gl card for that price!
Marc Forrester
Steffen Haeuser wrote:
> > Its been a long time since the gfx in B5 were Amiga rendered ...
> > The fact is that even a below-entry level 75mHz Pentium can
> > out-render the fastest Amiga.
>
> It can't. The Cyberstorm060 Amiga is faster than a 75 MHz Pentium.
Is that with or without toster?
> But well, the Pentium is cheaper... :(
That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'll probably get a Pentium
as soon as I have #500 to spend freely, they're fun little toys if
you've brains enough to get the things running smoothly..
(Anyone here got themselves a siamese system yet?)
Amiga Flame
pa...@hectortd.demon.co.uk (Paul Copsey) wrote:
>Philip (phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk) wrote:
>:
>: From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
>B5 has been using PC's since S2, S3 certainly.
>Paul
Excuse me but why would Amiga Shopper be doing a article on the
graphics in B5 if they were done on PC`s. Want proof here it is:
AMIGA SHOPPER MAGAZINE: Mojo, of Foundation Imaging, is writing a
multi-part article on B5 FX for an upcoming issue.
Read it and weep.
___________________AMIGA FLAME_______________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HATE`S PC`S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
++++++++++++++++++++LIKES B5++++++++++++++++++
_______________ENJOYS THE AMIGA______________
Paul Copsey
Amiga Flame (phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk) wrote:
: pa...@hectortd.demon.co.uk (Paul Copsey) wrote:
:
: >Philip (phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk) wrote:
: >:
: >: From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
:
: >B5 has been using PC's since S2, S3 certainly.
: Excuse me but why would Amiga Shopper be doing a article on the
: graphics in B5 if they were done on PC`s. Want proof here it is:
They were originally done on Amiga's, on Lightwave, they progressed to
using Raptors and all the add-on go faster stripes, but even that
wasn't enough in the end, so it's now done on DEC Alpha's, still using
Lightwave
: AMIGA SHOPPER MAGAZINE: Mojo, of Foundation Imaging, is writing a
: multi-part article on B5 FX for an upcoming issue.
Two points, this article was printed months ago, and FI don't do B5's
GFX from S4 onwards. If you want I'll find out Mojo's email address,
and you can ask him.
: Read it and weep.
Please check your facts carefully in future.
Vark
> And Amiga Shopper is running out of stuff to write about.
>
AND is a total rip off for the prices/page ratio !!
Gavan Moran
mag...@birdland.es.bawue.de (Steffen Haeuser) wrote:
> gmoran%nyx.net@INTERNET wrote :
>> Its been a long time since the gfx in B5 were Amiga rendered ... do you
>> think they've been sitting around A4000s the last four years? The fact is
>> that even a below-entry level 75mHz Pentium can out-render the fastest
>> Amiga. There is (and has been for a long time) no reason to use Amigas as
>> rendering machines over PCs or PowerPCs.
>It can't. The Cyberstorm060 Amiga is faster than a 75 MHz Pentium. But well,
>the Pentium is cheaper... :(
Are you sure about the speeds - I seem to remember when the 060 came out
that the SPECint and SPECfp were superior for even a 60mHz Pentium chip.
I don't doubt that an 060 Amiga would feel faster and more snappy than a
Pentuim 60mHz PC, but for raw rendering power the 060 doesn't really cut
the mustard.. especially with cheap 133mHz pentiums now being sold as the
entry level for PCs.
Its too bad that the same cash wasn't put into developing the 68000
series chips as was put into the x86 chips - they have an inherently
superior design, but sadly the extra development work put into the Intel
x86 chips has meant that they are still viable chips whereas the 68000
series has been left to wither on the vine.
Michael C Beecham
: >Philip (phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk) wrote:
: >:
: >: From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
: >B5 has been using PC's since S2, S3 certainly.
: >Paul
: Excuse me but why would Amiga Shopper be doing a article on the
: graphics in B5 if they were done on PC`s. Want proof here it is:
: AMIGA SHOPPER MAGAZINE: Mojo, of Foundation Imaging, is writing a
: multi-part article on B5 FX for an upcoming issue.
: Read it and weep.
I thought they just switched to doing the rendering on PC's for S2 and that
the modelling was still done on Amigas. I could be totally wrong of cause and
it wouldn't be the first time today!
MIKE.
--
<>
_ ___ __ ___ _____ _ (R) | A1200 120MB HD
/\\ |\\ /|| || // \\ /\\ | Blizzard 1230 IV
/ \\ | \\ / || || ||| / \\ | 6MB 8833 Monitor
/----\\ | \\ / || || ||| ___ /----\\ |
/ \\_ | \/ ||_ _||_ \\___// / \\_ | PowerPC?
Jeff Sereno
Gavan Moran wrote:
>
> mag...@birdland.es.bawue.de (Steffen Haeuser) wrote:
>
> > gmoran%nyx.net@INTERNET wrote :
> >> Its been a long time since the gfx in B5 were Amiga rendered ... do you
> >> think they've been sitting around A4000s the last four years? The fact is
> >> that even a below-entry level 75mHz Pentium can out-render the fastest
> >> Amiga. There is (and has been for a long time) no reason to use Amigas as
> >> rendering machines over PCs or PowerPCs.
>
> >It can't. The Cyberstorm060 Amiga is faster than a 75 MHz Pentium. But well,
> >the Pentium is cheaper... :(
>
> Are you sure about the speeds - I seem to remember when the 060 came out
> that the SPECint and SPECfp were superior for even a 60mHz Pentium chip.
> I don't doubt that an 060 Amiga would feel faster and more snappy than a
> Pentuim 60mHz PC, but for raw rendering power the 060 doesn't really cut
> the mustard.. especially with cheap 133mHz pentiums now being sold as the
> entry level for PCs.
The 68060 @ 50MHz has roughly the equivalent processing grunt of a
Pentium 90-100 (somewhere in the middle). I've got an '060 in my A4000T
and a Pentium 100 to compare it to, so I should know! (Although, I don't
do rendering stuff, but I DO do a small amount of image processing in
ADPro, etc.)
Of course, my Amiga still looks miles faster because it doesn't need to
page the hard-disk everytime I move the mouse! Hehehe...
And Breathless moves at near perfect frame rate - pretty damn good for a
planar display! Hope they release an '060 specific version...
And (this is off topic, BTW) if you can, try and watch Impulse's
"Muscles" demo on an '060 and prepare to be blown away. ;-)
Pity B5 doesn't show where I am anymore... Not even repeats! :-(
Jeff.
... I hate sex on TV. I keep falling off...
Alan L.M. Buxey
On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 20:52:54 GMT ,Philip posted the following:
: From Season 4 B5 will be using PC`s for their design and graphics.
: The company that done season 1 to 3 wanted more money. B5 said no so
: now they`re doing the graphics themselves. We`ve got to stop this.
: B5 made the media take notice of the Amiga`s capabilities and now this
: could create a bad image.
....[bad image] - pun intended?? ;-)
Come on, we'll all see straight away that PCs were used - unless they
try using the PC lightwave software (which might make it slightly harder
to note) - however, one thing will be certain, there'll be less exterior
shots if they decide to do the CGI themselves
: AMIGA`S. You bought the stock didn`t you so give them some A4000T`s
: and some encouragement by offering help.
- and some NewTek toasters? 8-)
Alan
Richard
Marc Forrester wrote:
>
> Steffen Haeuser wrote:
> > > Its been a long time since the gfx in B5 were Amiga rendered ...
> > > do you think they've been sitting around A4000s the last four years?
> > > The fact is that even a below-entry level 75mHz Pentium can
> > > out-render the fastest Amiga.
> >
Eh? They don't use either pentium or 060 to render. That would take
forever. They offload all the work onto a hi-speed rendering box like
the Raptor.
>
> Is that with or without toster?
>
Without of course. The toaster isn't available for the PC yet. Though
I believe they are building one.
Therefore, they should still be using the Amiga setup for B5, coz they
still need the toaster.
John Crnjanin
Amiga Flame (phi...@mailman.dnet.co.uk) wrote:
: Excuse me but why would Amiga Shopper be doing a article on the
: graphics in B5 if they were done on PC`s. Want proof here it is:
: AMIGA SHOPPER MAGAZINE: Mojo, of Foundation Imaging, is writing a
: multi-part article on B5 FX for an upcoming issue.
: Read it and weep.
This proves nothing. Seeing as Lightwave is multi-platform
(the latest version is admittedly far more advanced on PCs and other
systems), Mojo wouldn't have a trouble discussing techniques used in
Lightwave because the Amiga version is, for the most part, functionally
identical.
They also used Amigas for a year or two, so they've got
experience with them. Since the beginning of Season 2, FI has used a
bunch of Pentiums with a couple of Dec Alphas, and a few Macs. No Amigas.
Why would they use Amigas if they could use faster, cheaper, more
stabler PCs anyway?
john
Angus Manwaring
John Crnjanin (jo...@wonderland.apana.org.au) wrote:
: Why would they use Amigas if they could use faster, cheaper, more
: stabler PCs anyway?
More stabler?
--
Regards,
Angus.
Windows.....fragile, potentially dangerous and quite transparent.
Paul Morabito
Hi Jeff!,
It's me remember :).I see you've got your 060 now, how is it? nice to
see your still using your Amiga.Anyway see ya :)
Virtually,
==========================================================
| // Amiga 1200 * Paul Morabito |
| // * |
| \\ // 68030MMU 28mhz * Internet: paul...@world.net |
| \X/ 6mb RAM * Fidonet: ***************** |
| Team AMIGA & IAS * Amiganet: ***************** |
==========================================================
Alan L.M. Buxey
On Thu, 03 Oct 1996 09:56:54 +0100 ,Richard posted the following:
: Eh? They don't use either pentium or 060 to render. That would take
: forever. They offload all the work onto a hi-speed rendering box like
: the Raptor.
correct, but they modelled on toaster equiped A4000's
alan
Daniel Sevo
Jeff Sereno wrote:
> The 68060 @ 50MHz has roughly the equivalent processing grunt of a
> Pentium 90-100 (somewhere in the middle). I've got an '060 in my A4000T
> and a Pentium 100 to compare it to, so I should know!
AGAIN!!!
I can't believe it!
You should know? And why is that? You obviously don't know how to
compare two processors... You are comparing OS's, applications NOT CPU:s
Just because Windows makes it look slow as hell it doesn't mean the chip
(Pentium) can't deliver..
> (Although, I don't
> do rendering stuff, but I DO do a small amount of image processing in
> ADPro, etc.)
Then do 'rendering stuff' and we'll see if you still think they are
equal in speed...
>
> Of course, my Amiga still looks miles faster because it doesn't need to
> page the hard-disk everytime I move the mouse! Hehehe...
That's true ,then again, that's another story...
Marc Forrester
John Crnjanin wrote:
> Why would they use Amigas if they could use faster,
check
> cheaper,
bang to rights..
> more stabler PCs anyway?
I'm tempted to just let the grammar speak for itself here, but..
Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
Well, that's cleared that up. Feh.
Dr. Peter Kittel
In article <3255A7...@aber.ac.uk> Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
>John Crnjanin wrote:
>
>> more stabler PCs anyway?
>
>I'm tempted to just let the grammar speak for itself here, but..
>
>Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
No, it doesn't, after my experience.
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: pet...@pios.de
Had a severe disk crash, some mail and news may be lost.
John Crnjanin
: Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
: Well, that's cleared that up. Feh.
Windows NT is as solid as a rock. Even if something does screw
up, it won't take the system down.
Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
Such cannot be said for AmigaOS. Even recoverable errors take the
system down.
Why stick to yesterdays computing, when tomorrows technology is
already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and MicroSoft
Windows NT?
john
Chris Handley
In article <53akl4$4...@wonderland.apana.org.au>, jo...@wonderland.apana.org.au
says...
Yawn :-O . Go try start a fight in a PC group please - or put this in
csa.advoc. The above has been argued about *a lot* before - and I don't think
anyone is intersted in hearing this again (despite the fact that I have
experienced Win95 crashing quite a bit myself... :)
--
From Christopher Handley; Email: ela9...@sheffield.ac.uk
-------------------------------------------------------sig v2.15 A---------
//Amiga A1200/`030/40MHz/4Mb Fast ram |*Amiga - Back to kick-ass (tm):
\\/ + PowerStation (SCSI; 540Mb Hd + |AB3D II, Virtual Rally, VK Deluxe,
2.4 speed CD drive + SyQuest EZ135) |Star Fighter, Enigma,Boulderdash3D
|Power Amiga - a high-tech fetish object <slobber> O;-)
|The 1st PowerAmiga will be *MINE*!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bastable
In article <53akl4$4...@wonderland.apana.org.au>, jo...@wonderland.apana.org.au (John Crnjanin) writes:
> : Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
> : Well, that's cleared that up. Feh.
>
> Windows NT is as solid as a rock. Even if something does screw
> up, it won't take the system down.
>
> Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
> because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
(Ive done everything up to developing full blown apps for it)
but its far less solid than my ami with 3.x I use every day!
As for not bringing the whole system down...
ha ha ha ha ha
=:)
> Such cannot be said for AmigaOS. Even recoverable errors take the
> system down.
>
> Why stick to yesterdays computing, when tomorrows technology is
> already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and MicroSoft
> Windows NT?
Pentiums are yesterdays technology
And 1/2 of MS`s ideas are yesteryears ideas everyone else was
using long before they did.
babbage =:)
Hans Guijt
>: Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
>: Well, that's cleared that up. Feh.
>
> Windows NT is as solid as a rock. Even if something does screw
>up, it won't take the system down.
I don't have experience with it, but the way security is implemented
suggests that one rotten driver can take out the entire system.
> Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
>because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
I beg to differ. I am forced to work with the damn thing every day and it
crashes endlessly - far more so than my Amiga. Sure, my Amiga *may* die
completely in some cases, but so can w95. I can send you a MIDI file that
will cause mediaplayer to lock up the entire machine if you are interested.
BTW, it plays fine with GMPlay...
> Such cannot be said for AmigaOS. Even recoverable errors take the
>system down.
<beeeeeep> Wrong! Recoverable errors are, like the name suggests,
recoverable.
> Why stick to yesterdays computing, when tomorrows technology is
>already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and MicroSoft
>Windows NT?
Because tomorrows technology is boring, stuffed with ugliness and warts, and
totally devoid of any of the things that drew me to computers in the first
place. About the only thing that can be said for tomorrows technology is
that it runs on rather fast machines and has the occasional nice game.
Hans
Terrence Pitts
On Mon 7-Oct-1996 8:05p, John Crnjanin wrote:
JC> : Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
JC> : Well, that's cleared that up. Feh.
JC> Windows NT is as solid as a rock. Even if something does screw
JC> up, it won't take the system down.
JC> Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
JC> because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
I don't know about that - Windows 95 that is. I found my system crashing many
times and the system locks up. Only after installing first aid for windows 95,
the system doesn't lock up.
Dr. Peter Kittel
In article <53akl4$4...@wonderland.apana.org.au> jo...@wonderland.apana.org.au (John Crnjanin) writes:
>:
>: Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
>
I have no experiences with NT.
> Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
>because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
This is plain wrong. There are enough situations where the whole
system is taken down.
> Such cannot be said for AmigaOS. Even recoverable errors take the
>system down.
Not all of them and after my experience it's in the average less
harming than on Win95.
> Why stick to yesterdays computing,
My words, but I apply them to Wintels.
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: pet...@pios.de
Had a severe disk crash, some mails and news may be lost.
Marc Forrester
John Crnjanin wrote:
> Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
> because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
Really? You've never had the Good old 'General Production Fault'
Close/Ignore window which leaves no option but to reboot in Win95?
Try Civilization II. That does it now and again.
> Such cannot be said for AmigaOS.
> Even recoverable errors take the system down.
They can do that, certainly. I'm not saying memory protection
wouldn't be wonderful. But it doesn't crash often. The only
thing that's crashed me last month was running out of memory,
and bugs in my own Blitz programs, which don't error check.
Nice sneaky wording there, BTW, implying that
most errors -do- take the system down.
> Why stick to yesterdays computing, when tomorrows technology is
> already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and
> MicroSoft Windows NT?
Because I can't justify the expense to run a computer system
that drives me right up the wall on a very regular basis?
I may well get a P100 or so within the next yesr now that
the prices are starting to fall in Europe, but it's going
to be purely for games and maybe some rendering, and it's
going to go wrong every bloody day.
Gavan Moran
bab...@dmu.ac.uk (Martin Bastable) wrote:
>In article <53akl4$4...@wonderland.apana.org.au>, jo...@wonderland.apana.org.au (John Crnjanin) writes:
>> : Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
>> : Well, that's cleared that up. Feh.
>>
>> Windows NT is as solid as a rock. Even if something does screw
>> up, it won't take the system down.
>>
>> Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
>> because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
>I dont know what youve been using on Win95
>(Ive done everything up to developing full blown apps for it)
>but its far less solid than my ami with 3.x I use every day!
I'd say Win95 is at least as solid as AmigaOS and I know as I use it
for eight hours every working day to do real work. Its also considerably
more full-featured than AmigaOS in many key areas. Sure, it needs more
RAM and HD space but lets face it, we're no longer in the days when a
couple of hundred megs of HD cost upwards of half a grand and memory was
200 quid per four megs.
>As for not bringing the whole system down...
>ha ha ha ha ha
I see less whole system crashes in a days continuous use than I would
see in an Amiga with 2 or three hours use. And Win95 runs 'old' software
better than AmigaOS runs software designed for earlier versions of it.
>=:)
>> Such cannot be said for AmigaOS. Even recoverable errors take the
>> system down.
>>
>> Why stick to yesterdays computing, when tomorrows technology is
>> already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and MicroSoft
>> Windows NT?
>Erm
>Pentiums are yesterdays technology
Where does that leave the Amiga with 680x0 processors and a chipset
thats hardly changed since 1986?
>And 1/2 of MS`s ideas are yesteryears ideas everyone else was
>using long before they did.
Like it or not, the quality of MS applications software is way ahead of
anything available for the Amiga. There was a time when the Amiga had
more going for it, but these days the 'war' is over.
Martin Caspersson
jo...@wonderland.apana.org.au (John Crnjanin) wrote:
> Why stick to yesterdays computing, when tomorrows technology is
>already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and MicroSoft
>Windows NT?
A processor that's just reached it's end of the line is the future?
(there'll be no more X86 processors after the pentium PRO)
And it's still based on a processor that's almost 20 years old.
No, the future IMO is the PowerPC, and BTW WinNT runs on it.
**********************************************************************
** Martin Caspersson Email: SA9...@IDA.UTB.HB.SE **
**********************************************************************
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men"
- Willy Wonka
7th Gate
> Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
> because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
hahahaha, now this is what i'd call a really good laugh ! it doesn't take the
system down ? man, this must be widoze 99 that you have....more solid than
amiga OS ? hahahah.....cool !
> Why stick to yesterdays computing, when tomorrows technology is
> already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and MicroSoft
> Windows NT?
yeah ! this is really funny too ! mhhh, you DO mean that as a joke, don't you
? well, sure, it just can't be anything else....
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
\ Rainer Zimmermann Musician, Coder, Amiga Freak /
*>======>>>> | Intel Outside - Pure Amiga Power !! | <<<<======<*
/ \/ -+- EMail: rainer.z...@telecom.at -+- \/ \
| >> 7th Gate << http://www.webcircus.com/gate/ >> 7th Gate << |
| >> Red Sun Project << http://www.webcircus.com/rsp/ >> Red Sun Project << |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
*Thor V2.22 - 10-Oct-96 20:44:21*
Marc Forrester
Terrence Pitts wrote:
> JC> Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than
> JC> AmigaOS because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
>
> I don't know about that - Windows 95 that is. I found my system
> crashing many times and the system locks up. Only after installing
> first aid for windows 95, the system doesn't lock up.
And before anyone tries to claim that as an advantage,
there are numerous similar fixy things for AmigaOS.
And most of them are free.
Marc Forrester
Gavan Moran wrote:
> I'd say Win95 is at least as solid as AmigaOS and I know as I use
> it for eight hours every working day to do real work. Its also
> considerably more full-featured than AmigaOS in many key areas.
No more full-featured than -my- AmigaOS. Don't ignore the fact
that although AmigaOS itself has been standing idle for several
years, Amiga users haven't.
> Sure, it needs more RAM and HD space but lets face it, we're no
> longer in the days when a couple of hundred megs of HD cost upwards
> of half a grand and memory was 200 quid per four megs.
It still bites a bit having to buy another 8 Megs
just to get the system running happily..
> And Win95 runs 'old' software better than AmigaOS
> runs software designed for earlier versions of it.
Well, that's the Amiga hardware advances getting in the way of
presumptuous software, not the OS changing. OS-Compliant software
works fine everywhere. Besides, Win95 runs old software more or
less by emulation. Give me an Amiga big enough to handle UAE,
and it would be able to do the same thing.
> >Pentiums are yesterdays technology
>
> Where does that leave the Amiga with 680x0 processors
> and a chipset thats hardly changed since 1986?
Technology from years past, of course. Luckily, it was years
ahead of its time, so it comes out basically still up to date.
> Like it or not, the quality of MS applications software is way ahead
> of anything available for the Amiga. There was a time when the Amiga
> had more going for it, but these days the 'war' is over.
Quantity, yes. Quality? What does Word have over Wordsworth?
Gavan Moran
Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>Gavan Moran wrote:
>> I'd say Win95 is at least as solid as AmigaOS and I know as I use
>> it for eight hours every working day to do real work. Its also
>> considerably more full-featured than AmigaOS in many key areas.
>No more full-featured than -my- AmigaOS. Don't ignore the fact
>that although AmigaOS itself has been standing idle for several
>years, Amiga users haven't.
Its all very well going on about 3rd party add ons but since not
everyone will have them and different people will have different add-ons
you can't consider them to be features of the OS until they are included
in an official release. And when it comes to that there are many more
add-ons and enhancements for Win95 too.
>> Sure, it needs more RAM and HD space but lets face it, we're no
>> longer in the days when a couple of hundred megs of HD cost upwards
>> of half a grand and memory was 200 quid per four megs.
>It still bites a bit having to buy another 8 Megs
>just to get the system running happily..
By the time you add in MagicWB, toolsdaemon and all the other nice
little 3rd party utils into AmigaOS it requires a fair bit of memory/CPU
power too.
>> And Win95 runs 'old' software better than AmigaOS
>> runs software designed for earlier versions of it.
>Well, that's the Amiga hardware advances getting in the way of
>presumptuous software, not the OS changing. OS-Compliant software
>works fine everywhere. Besides, Win95 runs old software more or
>less by emulation. Give me an Amiga big enough to handle UAE,
>and it would be able to do the same thing.
I don't see your line of reasoning here - Win95 on a standard PC
handles pretty much any older software you can throw at it. AmigaOS on an
A1200 falls over with a hell of a lot of pre 2.0 stuff. This is a
particular problem since so much amiga stuff is PD so the authors didn't
take the time to ensure their software played by the rules.
>> >Pentiums are yesterdays technology
>>
>> Where does that leave the Amiga with 680x0 processors
>> and a chipset thats hardly changed since 1986?
>Technology from years past, of course. Luckily, it was years
>ahead of its time, so it comes out basically still up to date.
Sorry, no way. The Amiga was ahead of its time but is woefully out of
date these days. An A1200 with 10megs and a 50mHz 030 is considered hot
stuff in Amiga circles but a similar specced PC (ie 50mHz 486) wouldn't
get a look in for a PC buyer. Even for surfing the web I'd hate to have
to use my A1200 to do it compared to my PC at work - the PC is just plain
faster and better in almost every way.
>> Like it or not, the quality of MS applications software is way ahead
>> of anything available for the Amiga. There was a time when the Amiga
>> had more going for it, but these days the 'war' is over.
>Quantity, yes. Quality? What does Word have over Wordsworth?
Hundreds of features, dozens of books on how to use it, dozens of third
party enhancements, a high level of integration with a full office suite,
an internet assistant, hundreds of programmers/testers working on
developing it, millions of users with a wide knowlege base....
Gavan
mendoza
In article <53l0qn$1b...@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>, gmo...@nyx.net says...
>
>Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>No more full-featured than -my- AmigaOS. Don't ignore the fact
>>that although AmigaOS itself has been standing idle for several
>>years, Amiga users haven't.
>
> Its all very well going on about 3rd party add ons but since not
>everyone will have them and different people will have different add-ons
>you can't consider them to be features of the OS until they are included
>in an official release. And when it comes to that there are many more
>add-ons and enhancements for Win95 too.
So is there an add-on that will allow ALL programs (not including games)
to be fully pre-emptively multi-tasked. :)
>
>>It still bites a bit having to buy another 8 Megs
>>just to get the system running happily..
>
> By the time you add in MagicWB, toolsdaemon and all the other nice
>little 3rd party utils into AmigaOS it requires a fair bit of memory/CPU
>power too.
I don't know about that. I used a 600 with 2meg chip, running NewIcons on
an eight color screen, toolmanager, plus a couple of other commodities.
The only time I felt I needed more cpu power, excepting number crunching
type stuff, was when running MUI.
>
>>Well, that's the Amiga hardware advances getting in the way of
>>presumptuous software, not the OS changing. OS-Compliant software
>>works fine everywhere. Besides, Win95 runs old software more or
>>less by emulation. Give me an Amiga big enough to handle UAE,
>>and it would be able to do the same thing.
>
> I don't see your line of reasoning here - Win95 on a standard PC
>handles pretty much any older software you can throw at it.
I am guessing that there is quite a bit of DOS 3.3 stuff that won't run
under Win95, heck some of it won't even run under DOS 6.0
>AmigaOS on an
>A1200 falls over with a hell of a lot of pre 2.0 stuff. This is a
>particular problem since so much amiga stuff is PD so the authors didn't
>take the time to ensure their software played by the rules.
>
>>Technology from years past, of course. Luckily, it was years
>>ahead of its time, so it comes out basically still up to date.
>
> Sorry, no way. The Amiga was ahead of its time but is woefully out of
>date these days. An A1200 with 10megs and a 50mHz 030 is considered hot
>stuff in Amiga circles but a similar specced PC (ie 50mHz 486)
Uhm, no that should be a 386. Or are you saying that a 50MHz 486 (which
has nearly the same raw compute power as 40MHz 040) is required to
equal the 50MHz 030 Amiga in the example you gave.
>wouldn't
>get a look in for a PC buyer. Even for surfing the web I'd hate to have
>to use my A1200 to do it compared to my PC at work - the PC is just plain
>faster and better in almost every way.
Since I surf the web with graphics turned off, there would be basically no
difference, except the PC I use at work is connected via a T1 so in that
regard it would be better. Would you care to be more specific, "better in
almost every way" is to generic, doesn't say anything really.
>
>>Quantity, yes. Quality? What does Word have over Wordsworth?
>
> Hundreds of features,
Care to name some specifics, with hundreds it should be easy.
>dozens of books on how to use it,
Must be one diffucult program to use :)
>dozens of third
>party enhancements,
What, those hundreds of features and you still need enhancements. :)
>a high level of integration with a full office suite,
Thats nice, but what about integration with other vendors products.
>an internet assistant,
In a wordprocessor!?
>hundreds of programmers/testers working on
>developing it,
Maybe they should cut it down to a nice tight 5-6 programmer group,
plus a QA group, to see if fewer bugs are in it for the next release.
>millions of users with a wide knowlege base....
If the users I support are any indication, maybe combined they have a
wide knowledge base, separately each is much narrower. Sure most know
there job but when it comes to using computer programs most only learn
what they need to learn and nothing else.
Terrence Pitts
Mr. Kittel I have heard a lot of hoopla about a Amiga 6000T supposedly going
to showcased at the Video Toaster Expo, supposedly a risc at 100 Mhz.
Is this vaporware or does it exist?
Terrence Pitts
On Fri 11-Oct-1996 1:19a, Marc Forrester wrote:
MF> And before anyone tries to claim that as an advantage,
MF> there are numerous similar fixy things for AmigaOS.
MF> And most of them are free.
No way is an advantage but it keeps Lightwave running!
:)
Marc Forrester
Gavan Moran wrote:
> >> I'd say Win95 is at least as solid as AmigaOS and I know as I use
> >> it for eight hours every working day to do real work. Its also
> >> considerably more full-featured than AmigaOS in many key areas.
>
> >that although AmigaOS itself has been standing idle for several
> >years, Amiga users haven't.
>
> Its all very well going on about 3rd party add ons but since not
> everyone will have them and different people will have different
> add-ons you can't consider them to be features of the OS until they
> are included in an official release.
Well, yes, true as far as it goes, but so what? They're -easy-
to get hold of, and I suspect anyone who uses their Amiga for
anything but games does have a fairly comparable setup.
Technically they aren't OS features, but in any real world
situation they are there, and they do empower the OS.
(And the expandability itself -is- an OS feature..)
> And when it comes to that there are many more
> add-ons and enhancements for Win95 too.
Nothing quite as nice as NewIcons or MCP, I suspect.
And certainly no central archive to find them all on.
> >It still bites a bit having to buy another 8 Megs
> >just to get the system running happily..
>
> By the time you add in MagicWB, toolsdaemon and all the other
> nice little 3rd party utils into AmigaOS it requires a fair bit
> of memory/CPU power too.
Well, maybe another couple of Megs. At least you know -why-.
(And indeed can turn them off if necessary)
> >Well, that's the Amiga hardware advances getting in the way of
> >presumptuous software, not the OS changing. OS-Compliant software
> >works fine everywhere. Besides, Win95 runs old software more or
> >less by emulation. Give me an Amiga big enough to handle UAE,
> >and it would be able to do the same thing.
>
> I don't see your line of reasoning here - Win95 on a standard
> PC handles pretty much any older software you can throw at it.
Yes, by running it on a virtual machine. It's a hack.
No, we don't have anything similar for the Amiga, but we
don't really need it, since we have a backward-compatible OS.
TUDE and suchlike can handle the majority of problems.
Does the error; 'Incorrect DOS version' ring any bells.. ?
> AmigaOS on an A1200 falls over with a hell of a lot of pre 2.0 stuff.
Only games trying to send things direct to the screen hardware,
in my experience. Oh, and MicroSoft's AmigaBasic, of course..
> This is a particular problem since so much amiga stuff is PD so the
> authors didn't take the time to ensure their software played by the
> rules.
I've found nothing on Aminet that falls over on my 1200,
outside of the games and demos fields. (Not OS software)
> >Technology from years past, of course. Luckily, it was years
> >ahead of its time, so it comes out basically still up to date.
>
> Sorry, no way. The Amiga was ahead of its time but is woefully
> out of date these days.
Only in raw grunt power. There may be a lot of things that a P200
can do very fast compared to any Amiga, but there's still nothing
the Amiga just plain can't actually -do-. The Amiga is underpowered,
and overpriced. That doesn't add up to 'Woefully out of date' to me.
My Compaq 286 is woefully out of date, but an A4000/060?
> Even for surfing the web I'd hate to have to use my A1200 to do it
> compared to my PC at work - the PC is just plain faster and better
> in almost every way.
Exactly what machines are you comparing here?
> >Quantity, yes. Quality? What does Word have over Wordsworth?
>
> Hundreds of features,
Granted. Mostly never used, of course, but that one
time you do use them, it'll be nice to have them there.
What can it actually produce on paper that WW can't?
> dozens of books on how to use it,
Ah yes. 'Word 5.0 for dummies' and such.
Is that really any better than one decent user manual?
> dozens of third party enhancements,
Doesn't that come under 'hundreds of features'?
> a high level of integration with a full office suite,
True. This is the one big advantage of Microsoft packages.
Is it really relevant to a word processor, though?
I mean, you can achieve exactly the same thing by
simply including things as graphics.
> an internet assistant,
Er. A what?
> hundreds of programmers/testers working on developing it,
That didn't seem to stop version 2 from crashing with a
'Not enough memory to save document' at every opportunity.
The mythical man-week springs to mind here.
> millions of users with a wide knowlege base....
Is that effectively better than hundreds of thousands of users
with a wide knowledge base? You can post problems with Word to
Usenet and someone will be able to help, same with WordWorth.
Same with just about every piece of software ever, really.
Ben Gaunt
On 12-Oct-96 06:05:53, Terrence Pitts said about Re: BABYLON 5: They`re using
crap PC`s:
> Mr. Kittel I have heard a lot of hoopla about a Amiga 6000T supposedly going
> to showcased at the Video Toaster Expo, supposedly a risc at 100 Mhz.
Its basicly an A4000T with an 060 put inside it. So the 6 in the 6000T is
rfering to the 060 not realy a new Amiga, and wasn't ment to reflect that,
just a bad choice of naming.
Cya,
____ PICKLED FISH ______ .-----------------------------------.
/ __ \ SOFTWARE / ____/\| Editor Miggybyte Free Disk Mag |
/ /_/ /______ ______ / /___ \/| http://www.pickled.demon.co.uk |
/ __ // ____// __ /\ / // /\ |-----------------------------------|
/ /_/ // __/_ / / / / // /_/ / / | Channel X BBS +44 (0)181 943 5187 |
/_____//_____//_/ /_/ //_____/ / | 28800bps 24hrs 7 days a week |
\_____\\_____\\_\/\_\/ \_____\/ `-----------------------------------'
Tim Barham
Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) writes:
> Gavan Moran wrote:
>
> > > It still bites a bit having to buy another 8 Megs just to get
> > > the system running happily..
> >
> > By the time you add in MagicWB, toolsdaemon and all the other nice
> > little 3rd party utils into AmigaOS it requires a fair bit of
> > memory/CPU power too.
>
> Well, maybe another couple of Megs. At least you know -why-. (And
> indeed can turn them off if necessary)
Really, I think this whole memory argument is quite futile. Certainly,
Win95 needs more memory to run useful things that AmigaOS, but with the
price of memory being so cheap, and Amigas being so much more expensive
than Amigas of comparable power, its a pointless argument.
> > I don't see your line of reasoning here - Win95 on a standard PC
> > handles pretty much any older software you can throw at it.
>
> Yes, by running it on a virtual machine. It's a hack.
Excuse me? Win95 runs old software by running it in an environment that it
expects to be in. That's far better than the two alternatives - either
being tied to the 16-bit world forever, or being unable to run 16-bit apps.
I certainly want to switch over to 32-bit apps as soon as I can, but it's
nice to not have to upgrade all my old apps all at once. Virtual meachines
are not a hack.
> Does the error; 'Incorrect DOS version' ring any bells.. ?
I've never had that error except when running software intended for a
newers version of DOS on an older version. So what's your point?
TimB
Kim Lindberg INF
John Crnjanin (jo...@wonderland.apana.org.au) wrote:
: : Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
: : Well, that's cleared that up. Feh.
:
: Windows NT is as solid as a rock. Even if something does screw
: up, it won't take the system down.
year now, and it *does* crash... Also it's nice to compare:
When I have booted my NT at work I have used 48Mb out of 32Mb mem.
When I have booted my Amiga at home I have used less than 2Mb of 32Mb mem.
: Windows 95 isn't as solid as NT, but far more solid than AmigaOS
: because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
Yes it does... it doesn't *allways* do that, but in heavy use and a
lot of variety it falls down (allso with mcp a crashing program on
amiga doesn't take the computer down (not allways anyway :)
:
: Such cannot be said for AmigaOS. Even recoverable errors take the
: system down.
:
: Why stick to yesterdays computing, when tomorrows technology is
: already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and MicroSoft
: Windows NT?
Pentium is ok and Windows NT is the os that M$ has produced, but I
wouldn't say NT is anything special
//Kim
--
******************************************************************************
|
Name: \ | / Kim Lindberg
Address: \*/ Humalistonk. 16A21
--**O**-- 20100 Turku
/*\ Finland
Phone: / | \ +358-21-232 0875
Mobile-phone: | +358-40-503 5200
EMAIL: klin...@aton.abo.fi
******************************************************************************
Marc Forrester
Tim Barham wrote:
> Really, I think this whole memory argument is quite futile. Certainly,
> Win95 needs more memory to run useful things that AmigaOS, but with
> the price of memory being so cheap, and Amigas being so much more
Yes, it's a minor thing, but people so often seem to argue away
all the minor disadvantages of IBM systems one by one, saying
'Never mind, it's really cheap to fix' or 'It's not a problem
that often' that it ends up sounding like there's really
nothing wrong with them at all.
Whereas actually, a day's work ignoring all these minor
problems usually has me ready to kill something come 5pm.
> > > I don't see your line of reasoning here - Win95 on a standard PC
> > > handles pretty much any older software you can throw at it.
> >
> > Yes, by running it on a virtual machine. It's a hack.
>
> Excuse me? Win95 runs old software by running it in an environment
> that it expects to be in. I certainly want to switch over to 32-bit
> apps as soon as I can, but it's nice to not have to upgrade all my
> old apps all at once. Virtual meachines are not a hack.
Yes, but you were saying that Amiga systems are unable to
successfully run software written for older OS releases.
I was saying that this only applies to hardware hitting
software, and that the reason we don't have a virtual
A500 option to deal with this is that it would be of
such limited usefulness. It would, unlike with Win95,
hardly ever need to be used.
> > Does the error; 'Incorrect DOS version' ring any bells.. ?
>
> I've never had that error except when running software intended for
> a newers version of DOS on an older version. So what's your point?
I have on several occasions been presented with this error when
trying to use very basic commands like Format or Attrib from a
-previous- version of DOS. The jump from 5 to 6, I recall,
required inordinate amounts of new versions of basic
filesystem commands.
My point is that MS's OS-backward-compatibility
record is in no way better than that of AmigaOS.
Dr. Peter Kittel
In article <19961012.7...@obscurity.pd.mcs.net> --------@obscurity.pd.mcs.net (Terrence Pitts) writes:
>
>Mr. Kittel I have heard a lot of hoopla about a Amiga 6000T supposedly going
>to showcased at the Video Toaster Expo, supposedly a risc at 100 Mhz.
>
I don't know anything about this. And I also heard no hoopla, this
is the first time I come across this thing mentioned. Perhaps there's
some mixup with other computers?
J.J.Sadotti
Hans Guijt wrote:
>
> >: Stabler? AmigaOS crashes more often than Win95, does it?
> >: Well, that's cleared that up. Feh.
> >
> > Windows NT is as solid as a rock. Even if something does screw
> >up, it won't take the system down.
>
> suggests that one rotten driver can take out the entire system.
>
> >because it doesn't take the system down on a crash.
>
> crashes endlessly - far more so than my Amiga. Sure, my Amiga *may* die
> completely in some cases, but so can w95. I can send you a MIDI file that
> will cause mediaplayer to lock up the entire machine if you are interested.
>
> BTW, it plays fine with GMPlay...
>
> >system down.
>
> recoverable.
>
> >already at your fingertips with the Intel Pentium processor and
The Pentium processor being tomorrows technology?????? Pull the other
one. Although most average users don't know it, the FUNDAMENTAL design
of the pentium processor is still based on your little 286 chip!!!! Ok,
the processor is now 32bit wide and can handle speed of up to 200MHz but
the base design is still the same (going back to seventies technology).
It's not even a full RISC processor as some users would like to believe.
It has a RISC front end, converts the signals to the old style CISK
commands, and back again. If you think that's advanced technology then
you need to sit down with a VLSI designer and have a chat!!!! Although
admittedly now harnessing more power in terms of MIPS, the Pentium is of
an older fundamental design than the Motorola 68000 series
David W
Tim Barham <ti...@asymetrix.com> wrote in article
<01bbba17$b0d0aae0$c2a0...@TIMB.asymetrix.com>...
> Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) writes:
***SNIP***
>
> newers version of DOS on an older version. So what's your point?
I find it funny someone would bring up the rare "incorrect dos version"
error. My Amiga always had to worry about WHICH KICKSTART
version I ran. Some programs worked only with 1.1, 1.2, or 2.0/2.04.
Others needed me to disable my 68030 and reboot with the 68000.
Others still would work on the 68030, but only if the CPU caches were
disabled. Still others complained about machines with MORE than 512K
of RAM! There were a bazillion possible combinations of kickstart
and CPU to choose from on a truly kick-butt expanded Amiga like the
one I had, with KS 1.1, 1.2, and 2.04 on ROM, plus a 68030 card...
Used to drive me NUTS. And one in a billion DOS programs argue about
what DOS version? Sheesh. If the Amiga had backwards compatability
with older software half as good as Windows 95...
Not that I am a big Win95 fan. I use it. I also use it to run UAE so
I can play with some of my old Amiga programs. I was an Amiga owner from
1985 to 1993. Lots of memories. But like most, I have moved on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Any opinions expressed are MINE ALONE, and not those of Intel.
I do not in any way, shape, or form act as a company spokesperson.
So there!
>
Steffen Haeuser
dkadc%sprintmail.com@INTERNET wrote :
> I find it funny someone would bring up the rare "incorrect dos version"
> error. My Amiga always had to worry about WHICH KICKSTART
> version I ran. Some programs worked only with 1.1, 1.2, or 2.0/2.04.
Worry about it ? 99% of programs run on OS3.0 ... nothing to worry about it
anymore, if some old games don't run anymore (and old games, that's all...)
> what DOS version? Sheesh. If the Amiga had backwards compatability
> with older software half as good as Windows 95...
Then it would be dead and buried. As 1.3 System really Sucks. It would not
have had a chance. BTW, people have been warned by Commodore not to use
certain programming tricks... but they did not hear...
>
> Not that I am a big Win95 fan. I use it. I also use it to run UAE so
> I can play with some of my old Amiga programs. I was an Amiga owner from
> 1985 to 1993. Lots of memories. But like most, I have moved on.
Well, than... be happy with crap Win95 ...
Steffen Haeuser
Gavan Moran
Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>Tim Barham wrote:
>> Really, I think this whole memory argument is quite futile. Certainly,
>> Win95 needs more memory to run useful things that AmigaOS, but with
>> the price of memory being so cheap, and Amigas being so much more
>> expensive than IBM's of comparable power, its a pointless argument.
>Yes, it's a minor thing, but people so often seem to argue away
>all the minor disadvantages of IBM systems one by one, saying
>'Never mind, it's really cheap to fix' or 'It's not a problem
>that often' that it ends up sounding like there's really
>nothing wrong with them at all.
What 'major problems' does a modern PC have exactly?
I can point at plenty of 'major problems' in a typical Amiga, sadly:
Overly expensive, no chunky graphics modes, poor support for high
resolutions, no virtual memory, no built-in networking, expensive
peripherals, no PCI slots, outdated CPU family, no development on hardware
or OS for 4 years.....
A modern PC set up with Windows 95 will have little in the way of
problems with functionality or usability AND it will cost a lot less than
an Amiga with all the add-ons necessary to boost its functionality into
the same ball-park.
>> > Does the error; 'Incorrect DOS version' ring any bells.. ?
>>
>> I've never had that error except when running software intended for
>> a newers version of DOS on an older version. So what's your point?
>I have on several occasions been presented with this error when
>trying to use very basic commands like Format or Attrib from a
>-previous- version of DOS. The jump from 5 to 6, I recall,
>required inordinate amounts of new versions of basic
>filesystem commands.
Yes, thats right. When you upgrade the OS its hardly asking to much to
update the system files too. Would you rather update on OS on a command
by command basis or something?
>My point is that MS's OS-backward-compatibility
>record is in no way better than that of AmigaOS.
On the contrary, its a hell of a lot better. Even today a Win95 machine
can run the vast majority of DOS software dating back 10 years with little
problems. 'Modern' OS3.0 Amigas will often choke on earlier software
either because of OS compatibility or chipset compatibility.
Marc Forrester
Gavan Moran wrote:
> What 'major problems' does a modern PC have exactly?
They crash too often, software is a bitch to install properly,
and they insulate their users from what they're actually doing,
leaving the general populace in a permanent state of computer
semiliteracy. You should see my father's Win95 desktop,
you wouldn't believe he's been working on computers since
the advent of floppy based Apricot business machines..
> I can point at plenty of 'major problems' in a typical Amiga, sadly:
> Overly expensive,
Check.
> no chunky graphics modes, no virtual memory, no built-in networking,
As standard, maybe, but these things -can- be added,
so this is basically just an expansion of the whole
'Amazingly expensive' thing.
> expensive peripherals,
Like what? My Maxtor 1.3G HD cost #130,
and my 8M SIMM is a standard 70ns model.
> poor support for high resolutions, no PCI slots
I'll have to leave those for the big box owners to comment on.
> outdated CPU family
What, like the 80x86 series isn't ancient too?
Okay, our fastest processor is the 68060@50MHz.
There's the toaster if you want raytracing grunt power.
What else do you use a 200MHz Pentium for?
> no development on hardware or OS for 4 years.....
No official development, maybe. No owner.
Plenty of third party support, though.
> A modern PC set up with Windows 95 will have little in
> the way of problems with functionality or usability
So why am I always having to help my friends persuade
their games to use their soundcards and CD-Roms, then?
Maybe in the future, when everything runs in Win95 mode, yes.
> AND it will cost a lot less..
Yes, this has been mentioned. I agree. Amigas = Much expensive.
> >My point is that MS's OS-backward-compatibility
> >record is in no way better than that of AmigaOS.
>
> On the contrary, its a hell of a lot better. Even today a Win95
> machine can run the vast majority of DOS software dating back 10
> years with little problems. 'Modern' OS3.0 Amigas will often choke
> on earlier software either because of OS compatibility or chipset
> compatibility.
Chipset compatibility is irrelevant. AmigaOS cannot be blamed
for the action of programs which DO NOT USE the operating system,
and it is the operating systems that are being compared here.
I do not deny that there are many old Amiga programs which
die when presented with newer hardware, but this is a weakness
of the Amiga games software archives, and not of the AmigaOS.
Still, I think even there, 'Will often choke' is an exaggeration.
It will choke sometimes, certainly, but in the vast majority of
chipset based problems, KillAGA, ECSLaunch, RunShit, TUDE, or as
a last resort, the preboot menu can be used to successfully fool
said piece of crappy coding into working.
OS3.0 Amigas will often choke because of OS compatibility?
I have yet to see an OS1.3 program kill my OS3.1 system.
Scott Thomas
Gavan Moran wrote:
> A modern PC set up with Windows 95 will have little in the way of
> problems with functionality or usability AND it will cost a lot less than
> an Amiga with all the add-ons necessary to boost its functionality into
> the same ball-park.
No, it still takes a great deal of money to bring a PC up to the Video
production schema of Amiga.
Amiga can run various PC items through emulation. The reverse is not
true.
And PnP is still horrible. Autoconfig is still champ.
Win95 is crap. M$ knows it; Win97 is an adapted NT.
I work with NT daily. It's not bad. AmigaOS is still more fun.
All in all, comparing PCs and Amigas is not going to lead to anything
fruitful. They are still fulfilling different functions for the most
part.
Gavan Moran
Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>Gavan Moran wrote:
>> What 'major problems' does a modern PC have exactly?
>They crash too often, software is a bitch to install properly,
>and they insulate their users from what they're actually doing,
>leaving the general populace in a permanent state of computer
>semiliteracy.
Yeah, these damned modern cars are a bitch too - allowing people to
drive them without being qualified mechanics.
For the record, you can get under the hood just as easily in Win95 as
you can in AmigaDOS .. the DOS command window is still there.
>> I can point at plenty of 'major problems' in a typical Amiga, sadly:
>> Overly expensive,
>Check.
Really? A modern machine needs a decent amount of memory, a good
monitor, a HD and decent graphics. How much does an A1200 (the cheapest
Amiga) with all the above added (actually, you can do nothing to improve
the rather low-end gfx of an A1200) compared to an entry level P100
machine with monitor?
>> no chunky graphics modes, no virtual memory, no built-in networking,
>As standard, maybe, but these things -can- be added,
Just how easy is it to add chunky gfx to an A1200 then? And even the
machines which support gfx cards have problems with all software being
compatible with the new card - this is because AmigaDOS doesn't have RTG
and assumes an ECS or AGA chipset as standard. Thus you have to rely on
unnofficial hacks with varying degrees of compatiblity if you want SVGA
style graphics. And none of the add-on Amiga networking packages come
close to the range and functionality of networking protocols built in to
Win95 - _full_ tcp/ip, IPX and netbeui with microsoft and novell clients
and a _supplied_ browser thats light years ahead of any third party Amiga
web browser (internet explorer).
>so this is basically just an expansion of the whole
>'Amazingly expensive' thing.
Amiga gfx cards are MUCH more expensive that their PC counterparts,
despite using the _same_ gfx chips as their core (actually, Amiga gfx
cards tend to use out-of-date PC chipsets).
Ditto network cards - last time I checked there was only one ethernet
solution available for Amigas with Zorro slots and the card cost 200 UK
pounds as opposed to dozens of PC network cards starting at 30 UK Pounds.
If you have an A1200, forget ethernet or decent SVGA gfx.
>> expensive peripherals,
>Like what? My Maxtor 1.3G HD cost #130,
>and my 8M SIMM is a standard 70ns model.
Peripherals like multisync monitors capable of going to 15kHz, modern
(fast or wide or both) SCSI cards, MPEG encoders/decoders, gfx cards (to
give the Amiga the same gfx as 1-2 yr old PCs), 16 bit soundcards, network
cards (or card would be more accurate).
>> poor support for high resolutions, no PCI slots
>I'll have to leave those for the big box owners to comment on.
Most people have A1200s or A500/600s. Even those with Zorro slots find
few peripherals and the performance can't match PCI slots now standard on
PCs, Macs and many workstations.
>> outdated CPU family
>What, like the 80x86 series isn't ancient too?
But the x86 series is still be developed and not just by intel either.
There are at least 3 companies with their own x86 lines and the chip line
is constantly being improved (Pentium Pro and MMX technology)
>Okay, our fastest processor is the 68060@50MHz.
>There's the toaster if you want raytracing grunt power.
>What else do you use a 200MHz Pentium for?
With Pentiums now standard, lots of multimedia applications are now
becoming commonplace. Try getting full-screen software MPEG video
decoding out of a typical Amiga - you can do it on nearly all modern PCs.
The average secretaries new PC is actually better at raytracing that a
fully expanded Amiga.
As for the toaster, I wasn't aware it had gained ray tracing powers,
last time I checked it was just a 24-bit frame buffer with some sony chips
for DVE style effects.
>> no development on hardware or OS for 4 years.....
>No official development, maybe. No owner.
Exactly. Not that C= did much developement on the Amiga when they owned
it. Theres really very little advance in an A1200 on an A1000.
>Plenty of third party support, though.
No machine has more third party support than the PC. And most of the
Amiga third party OS support is aimed at kludging features into the Amiga
OS that are already on the PC - the like of RTG, networking, virtual
memory etc.
>> A modern PC set up with Windows 95 will have little in
>> the way of problems with functionality or usability
>So why am I always having to help my friends persuade
>their games to use their soundcards and CD-Roms, then?
Because they are probably using old DOS games. These are certainly a
pain to set up, but invariably they can be coaxed to run. Unlike the
majority of Amiga CD games on anything other than a CD32 - I'm extremely
wary of buying an Amiga CD title for my A1200 system since I've had so
many fail despite having three seperate CD 'emulator' systems.
And of course theres a massive amount of software available on PC CD,
much of it making use of the CD format. As opposed to the dearth of true
Amiga CD titles.
>Maybe in the future, when everything runs in Win95 mode, yes.
Win95 simplifies things enormously. Once you have your 16-bit
soundcard installed under Windows (pretty trivial as 95 is very good at
autodetecting hardware) and your network card and your 3-D gfx card you
will find that the majority of new games run straight out of the box AND
utilise the hardware you have bought. How many Amiga games will utilise
gfx cards, 16 bit sound and network cards?
>> >My point is that MS's OS-backward-compatibility
>> >record is in no way better than that of AmigaOS.
>>
>> On the contrary, its a hell of a lot better. Even today a Win95
>> machine can run the vast majority of DOS software dating back 10
>> years with little problems. 'Modern' OS3.0 Amigas will often choke
>> on earlier software either because of OS compatibility or chipset
>> compatibility.
>Chipset compatibility is irrelevant. AmigaOS cannot be blamed
>for the action of programs which DO NOT USE the operating system,
>and it is the operating systems that are being compared here.
>I do not deny that there are many old Amiga programs which
>die when presented with newer hardware, but this is a weakness
>of the Amiga games software archives, and not of the AmigaOS.
Who cares? Loads of old Amiga software breaks on modern Amigas, lots
even fails when you up the CPU from a 68000 on an old amiga. On PCs,
despite having gone from 8086 to Pentium, CGA to 3-D SVGA PCI cards etc,
old software still works and works _better_. Up the spec of your PC and
your software speeds up, up the spec of your Amiga and you find that a lot
of your old stuff stops working and theres little new stuff to take
advantage of an expanded machine.
>Still, I think even there, 'Will often choke' is an exaggeration.
>It will choke sometimes, certainly, but in the vast majority of
>chipset based problems, KillAGA, ECSLaunch, RunShit, TUDE, or as
>a last resort, the preboot menu can be used to successfully fool
>said piece of crappy coding into working.
And you complain about fiddling around with configs to get DOS games
running?
>OS3.0 Amigas will often choke because of OS compatibility?
>I have yet to see an OS1.3 program kill my OS3.1 system.
I have had plenty of programs which I used regularly on my old A500
either fall over or worse crash my A1200 - and things got worse when I
added an 030 and fastmem.
Gavan
Johan Rönnblom
Gavan Moran wrote:
> Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Yes, it's a minor thing, but people so often seem to argue away
> >all the minor disadvantages of IBM systems one by one, saying
> >'Never mind, it's really cheap to fix' or 'It's not a problem
> >that often' that it ends up sounding like there's really
> >nothing wrong with them at all.
>
Slow in operation (though not on pure number-crunching), jerky graphics (not many PC
programmers seem to have heard of synchronization), user interface not real-time (that
buffering drives me NUTS!), often *very* hard to install new SW/HW (not to speak about
deinstallation), compatibility problems (I know someone whose *monitor* was incompatible
with the *sound*card*), Wi* thrashing your HD (it's growing all the time, more and more
files, and the cluster size doesn't help either), I could go on forever, as I'm sitiing
right in front of one now :(
> I can point at plenty of 'major problems' in a typical Amiga, sadly:
> Overly expensive,
True :(
> no chunky graphics modes, poor support for high
> resolutions,
Ever heard about Gfx-cards? To them 1) doesn't really apply either.
> no virtual memory,
Half true, but most programs that need it accept VM. OTOH, on a PC *everything* uses VM,
without asking, making it crawl at the speed of an A500.. yuck!
> no built-in networking,
Why should there be? Networking cards are way too expensive though.
> expensive peripherals
True. But wait, you've already said that!!
>, no PCI slots,
Not? I can even add them to my A1200 if I could afford it.
> outdated CPU family,
True for high-end. :(
> no development on hardware
What!?
> or OS for 4 years.....
'No development' is untrue, change it to 'very little'.
> A modern PC set up with Windows 95 will have little in the way of
> problems with functionality or usability AND it will cost a lot less than
> an Amiga with all the add-ons necessary to boost its functionality into
> the same ball-park.
Sorry, but I can't agree. My A1200 is perfectly useable as a word processor, my parents even
(spontaneosly) thought it was faster than the schools(where they work) fast 486:es. And
that's with my '020!
> >My point is that MS's OS-backward-compatibility
> >record is in no way better than that of AmigaOS.
>
> On the contrary, its a hell of a lot better. Even today a Win95 machine
> can run the vast majority of DOS software dating back 10 years with little
> problems. 'Modern' OS3.0 Amigas will often choke on earlier software
> either because of OS compatibility or chipset compatibility.
Well, that's because the Pentium is in practice divided into 2 halfs: One new, efficient
processor, and one old, to maintain compatibility. Same goes with OS, drivers, everything,
for each step taking away half of what at first sight is awesome power.
I, for one, would definitely *not* like a PAmiga with that kind of backwards compatibility.
/Johan Rönnblom, Team Amiga
Scott Thomas
Gavan Moran wrote:
> And none of the add-on Amiga networking packages come
> close to the range and functionality of networking protocols built in to
> Win95 - _full_ tcp/ip, IPX and netbeui with microsoft and novell clients
> and a _supplied_ browser thats light years ahead of any third party Amiga
> web browser (internet explorer).
NetBEUI is poop and you know it. And any Amiga add-on which implements
TCP-IP is ALL the range and functionality you need. Internet Explorer is
shit. Navigator is still king, and a few Amiga browsers are doing quite
well.
> As for the toaster, I wasn't aware it had gained ray tracing powers,
> last time I checked it was just a 24-bit frame buffer with some sony chips
> for DVE style effects.
OK, so you're making it obvious you don't know what you're talking
about.
> Exactly. Not that C= did much developement on the Amiga when they owned
> it. Theres really very little advance in an A1200 on an A1000.
And here you *really* are clue-less.
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
Scott Thomas <t...@ricochet.net> writes:
>Amiga can run various PC items through emulation. The reverse is not
>true.
Oh, of course it is.
What is the most complex PC processor you can emulate, and at what speed
(and no, I don't call putting a PC-on-a-card into your machine emulation)?
When did that processor hit the market? What was available from Commodore
at the time?
Answer all these, and say "UAE", and you are in businness.
Bernie
--
============================================================================
"How does Windows work?"
Mike Battersby, BCS (Hon), System administrator at Deakin Uni, while trying
to handle Netscape/Windows during a meeting of the Linux Users of Victoria
Stefan Boberg
Johan Rönnblom <JRo...@ba.ssdn.skellefte.se> wrote:
>Slow in operation (though not on pure number-crunching), jerky graphics (not many PC
>programmers seem to have heard of synchronization), user interface not real-time (that
>buffering drives me NUTS!), often *very* hard to install new SW/HW (not to speak about
>deinstallation), compatibility problems (I know someone whose *monitor* was incompatible
>with the *sound*card*), Wi* thrashing your HD (it's growing all the time, more and more
>files, and the cluster size doesn't help either), I could go on forever, as I'm sitiing
>right in front of one now :(
Try NT. Almost perfect.
>Sorry, but I can't agree. My A1200 is perfectly useable as a word processor, my parents even
>(spontaneosly) thought it was faster than the schools(where they work) fast 486:es. And
>that's with my '020!
Fast 486:es, eh? ;-D
> /Johan Rönnblom, Team Amiga
--
=====================================================================
Stefan Boberg bob...@team17.com
David Corn
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:15:52 -0700, Scott Thomas <t...@ricochet.net>
wrote:
>No, it still takes a great deal of money to bring a PC up to the Video
>production schema of Amiga.
Nobody cares.
>Amiga can run various PC items through emulation. The reverse is not
>true.
It's too slow to be remotely useful.
>And PnP is still horrible. Autoconfig is still champ.
Hardly.
>Win95 is crap. M$ knows it; Win97 is an adapted NT.
You've run them all?
>I work with NT daily. It's not bad. AmigaOS is still more fun.
NT has many significant advantages, one of which is software.
________________________________________________
Reachable at: 713 888 6236
E-Mailable at: dc...@paradise.pplnet.com
E-Mail address changed to stop auto-spam-mailers
Eric Lanier
David Corn (dco...@paradise.pplnet.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:15:52 -0700, Scott Thomas <t...@ricochet.net>
: wrote:
:
: >No, it still takes a great deal of money to bring a PC up to the Video
: >production schema of Amiga.
:
: Nobody cares.
No, YOU don't care. Speak for yourself and not for others.
: >Amiga can run various PC items through emulation. The reverse is not
: >true.
:
: It's too slow to be remotely useful.
:
: >And PnP is still horrible. Autoconfig is still champ.
:
: Hardly.
So your an expert and know everything to back this up?
:
: >Win95 is crap. M$ knows it; Win97 is an adapted NT.
:
: You've run them all?
He doesn't have to, this is Microsoft after all!
:
: >I work with NT daily. It's not bad. AmigaOS is still more fun.
:
: NT has many significant advantages, one of which is software.
^^^^^^^^
That should read.... bloatware for a bloated OS!
: Reachable at: 713 888 6236
: E-Mailable at: dc...@paradise.pplnet.com
: E-Mail address changed to stop auto-spam-mailers
Carpet bombed often eh? :)
Erikku
Marc Forrester
Gavan Moran wrote:
> >> What 'major problems' does a modern PC have exactly?
> >leaving the general populace in a permanent state of computer
> >semiliteracy.
>
> Yeah, these damned modern cars are a bitch too -
> allowing people to drive them without being qualified mechanics.
Qualified mechanics? Most Wintel users I know aren't just not
qualified mechanics, they can't even handle a manual gearbox.
Hell, my father's office staff have been using the things for
years now, and still can't even drive. They're still reading
lists of 'Which controls to press to do thing X'
> >> Overly expensive,
>
> >Check.
>
> Really? A modern machine needs a decent amount of memory,
> a good monitor, a HD and decent graphics. How much does an A1200..
Do you know what it means when someone says 'Check' like that?
> Just how easy is it to add chunky gfx to an A1200 then?
I believe the device in question is simply plugged
in between the computer and monitor lead.
> And even the machines which support gfx cards have problems with all
> software being compatible with the new card - this is because AmigaDOS
> doesn't have RTG and assumes an ECS or AGA chipset as standard.
> Thus you have to rely on unnofficial hacks with varying
> degrees of compatiblity if you want SVGA style graphics.
As a rule, such AmigaOS expansions are often very system friendly
additions. AmigaOS is designed to be easily expandible. The Hacks
are in the actual applications and especially in the games software.
Are you saying that to run a program that tries to open it's own
native AGA screens, the CyberGFX card has to be removed?
> And none of the add-on Amiga networking packages come close to the
> range and functionality of networking protocols built in to Win95
How carefully have you researched that statement?
> _full_ tcp/ip, IPX and netbeui with microsoft and novell clients
> and a _supplied_ browser thats light years ahead of any third
> party Amiga web browser (internet explorer).
I take it Light Years Ahead represents having Java support?
> >so this is basically just an expansion of the whole
> >'Amazingly expensive' thing.
>
> Amiga gfx cards are MUCH more expensive that their PC counterparts,
Is this supposed to be a contradiction, or something?
> If you have an A1200, forget ethernet or decent SVGA gfx.
Well, there is an upgrade route by which an A1200 can be given a
trapdoor processor card, which can later be moved into a blank
A4000 tower. It's a route I plan to follow myself, unless
AmigaOS turns up on any significantly better hardware.
It's an extremely expensive route, of course.
But OTOH, it not like it's a year's wages, or anything.
> >> expensive peripherals,
> >Like what? My Maxtor 1.3G HD cost #130,
> >and my 8M SIMM is a standard 70ns model.
>
> Peripherals like multisync monitors capable of going to 15kHz,
There are interfaces available for attaching cheaper screens.
> >Okay, our fastest processor is the 68060@50MHz.
> >There's the toaster if you want raytracing grunt power.
> >What else do you use a 200MHz Pentium for?
>
> Try getting full-screen software MPEG video decoding out of a
> typical Amiga - you can do it on nearly all modern PCs.
Really? I see a lot of flickering going on in most high street
display demos. Come to that, full screen is hardly a standard.
> As for the toaster, I wasn't aware it had gained ray tracing powers,
> last time I checked it was just a 24-bit frame buffer with some sony
> chips for DVE style effects.
I must have got the name confused with something else..
> >Plenty of third party support, though.
>
> No machine has more third party support than the PC.
Of course. But on an absolute scale, the Amiga is well supported.
More support would lead to cheaper hardware, of course,
but the issue of expense was conceded years ago.
> And most of the Amiga third party OS support is aimed at kludging
> features into the Amiga OS that are already on the PC - the like of
> RTG, networking, virtual memory etc.
You forgot to say 'kludged' between 'already' and 'on', there..
> >> A modern PC set up with Windows 95 will have little in
> >> the way of problems with functionality or usability
> >So why am I always having to help my friends persuade
> >their games to use their soundcards and CD-Roms, then?
> Because they are probably using old DOS games.
Dos games, yes. Hardly limited to the older ones, though.
Actually, older games tend to be much easier to run,
because they don't try to support the peripherals.
> Unlike the majority of Amiga CD games on anything other than a CD32
> I'm extremely wary of buying an Amiga CD title for my A1200 system
Yes, CD32 games are notorious for bad hacks.
> And of course theres a massive amount of software available on PC CD,
> much of it making use of the CD format. As opposed to the dearth of
> true Amiga CD titles.
Well, there's a dearth of Amiga titles, period.
> Win95 simplifies things enormously. Once you have your 16-bit
> soundcard installed under Windows and your network card and your
> 3-D gfx card you will find that the majority of new games run
> straight out of the box AND utilise the hardware you have bought.
> How many Amiga games will utilise gfx cards,
> 16 bit sound and network cards?
How many Win95 games are out there? Proportionally speaking,
the figures are probably similar, Windows 95 and the Amiga
upgrades you mention being similarly new arrivals.
> >I do not deny that there are many old Amiga programs which
> >die when presented with newer hardware, but this is a weakness
> >of the Amiga games software archives, and not of the AmigaOS.
>
> Who cares?
Hell, I dunno. I'm just defending AmigaOS against attacks
that should be directed against Amiga games software..
> >OS3.0 Amigas will often choke because of OS compatibility?
> >I have yet to see an OS1.3 program kill my OS3.1 system.
>
> I have had plenty of programs which I used regularly on my old A500
> either fall over or worse crash my A1200 - and things got worse when
> I added an 030 and fastmem.
Such as.. ?
BTW, does anyone know -why- so many Amiga programs were hacked
together such that they fell apart on later AmigaOS releases,
whereas with MSDOS, the same is true of many system functions,
but doesn't plague the actual games and applications software?
By all accounts, it should be very easy to write forward
compatible code for the AmigaOS, just as it is for, say, UNIX.
Emmanuel Henn‚
Emmanuel Henné starrte gebannt auf die Nachricht von
"David W",die urplötzlich auf seinem PowerAmiga-Monitor
erschien und beschloss, auf den Betreff `incorrect DOS version, WAS: Re: BABYLON 5: They`re using crap PC`s'
folgendes zu erwidern.....
D)> Tim Barham <ti...@asymetrix.com> wrote in article
D)> <01bbba17$b0d0aae0$c2a0...@TIMB.asymetrix.com>...
D)> > Marc Forrester (me...@aber.ac.uk) writes:
D)> ***SNIP***
D)> > > Does the error; 'Incorrect DOS version' ring any bells.. ?
D)> >
D)> > I've never had that error except when running software intended for a
D)> > newers version of DOS on an older version. So what's your point?
D)> ***SNIP***
D)>
D)> I find it funny someone would bring up the rare "incorrect dos version"
D)> error. My Amiga always had to worry about WHICH KICKSTART
D)> version I ran. Some programs worked only with 1.1, 1.2, or 2.0/2.04.
D)> Others needed me to disable my 68030 and reboot with the 68000.
D)> Others still would work on the 68030, but only if the CPU caches were
D)> disabled. Still others complained about machines with MORE than 512K
D)> of RAM! There were a bazillion possible combinations of kickstart
D)> and CPU to choose from on a truly kick-butt expanded Amiga like the
D)> one I had, with KS 1.1, 1.2, and 2.04 on ROM, plus a 68030 card...
D)> Used to drive me NUTS. And one in a billion DOS programs argue about
D)> what DOS version? Sheesh. If the Amiga had backwards compatability
D)> with older software half as good as Windows 95...
That`s just nonsense. Get 3.0 or 3.1 and everything`s fine.
Nobody even considers about using less than 2.0.
You mean GAMES, right ?
Ciao,
Roi
ææææOO#m_ ææOOOæw O#N 1200-68060-18 MB RAM
OOO@"- OO, OOO@"°OOÑ OO# Workin` on PHOENIX
OOOOOOP ]OO# 7OO# OOO
OOO# OÑF ¬ ÑOOOOÑ' OOO @HOTLINE.PFALZ.DE
----------------------------------------------------
"Das war ja ein Felltroffel...äh, Volltreffer !"
David Corn
On 24 Oct 1996 18:40:06 GMT, ser...@omni.com (Eric Lanier) wrote:
>: >No, it still takes a great deal of money to bring a PC up to the Video
>: >production schema of Amiga.
>: Nobody cares.
>No, YOU don't care. Speak for yourself and not for others.
The vast, vast majority of the market doesn't care - Commodore went
bust, if you'll recall. Nobody cares.
>: >Amiga can run various PC items through emulation. The reverse is not
>: >true.
>: It's too slow to be remotely useful.
>: >And PnP is still horrible. Autoconfig is still champ.
>: Hardly.
>So your an expert and know everything to back this up?
That I believe PnP isn't horrible, and that AutoConfig isn't still
"champ"? Well, I can plug in cards and they work. Many others share
these experiences. It isn't perfect, but it certainly isn't
"horrible".
: >Win95 is crap. M$ knows it; Win97 is an adapted NT.
>: You've run them all?
>He doesn't have to, this is Microsoft after all!
Great...the blind leading the blind.
>: >I work with NT daily. It's not bad. AmigaOS is still more fun.
>: NT has many significant advantages, one of which is software.
>That should read.... bloatware for a bloated OS!
Hardly that.
>: E-Mail address changed to stop auto-spam-mailers
>
>Carpet bombed often eh? :)
Everyone in for-sale newsgroups is...
________________________________________________
Johan Rönnblom
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au wrote:
>
> Scott Thomas <t...@ricochet.net> writes:
>
> >Amiga can run various PC items through emulation. The reverse is not
> >true.
>
>
> What is the most complex PC processor you can emulate, and at what speed
> (and no, I don't call putting a PC-on-a-card into your machine emulation)?
> When did that processor hit the market? What was available from Commodore
> at the time?
I've seen in adverts that a 486 works, but I'm not sure it's out yet. Speed? Reasonable,
Perhaps 1/4th to 1/3rd of the physical processor.
> Answer all these, and say "UAE", and you are in businness.
Processor? I think it supports 020, yes.
Speed? Maybe 1/20th of the physical processor, and then I'm very nice.
Runs? Err. Dpaint 4 (Not AGA) is about the limit.
Usefulness? I don't know. Maybe it's useful to some for some old A500 games, if you don't mind
the low framerate, non-action games would probably be OK if you get them to work.
Software? Must be read from disk on a real Amiga, then transferred to the PC.
I'm getting rather pissed with people saying how good UAE is, they who say so cannot have seen
an Amiga in the last 4 years. It's very well done, I admit that, but it's not very useful.
/Johan Rönnblom, Team Amiga
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
Johan Roennblom <JRo...@ba.ssdn.skellefte.se> writes:
>bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au wrote:
>>
>> Scott Thomas <t...@ricochet.net> writes:
>>
>> >Amiga can run various PC items through emulation. The reverse is not
>> >true.
>> Oh, of course it is.
>>
>> What is the most complex PC processor you can emulate, and at what speed
>> (and no, I don't call putting a PC-on-a-card into your machine emulation)?
>I've seen in adverts that a 486 works, but I'm not sure it's out
>yet. Speed? Reasonable, Perhaps 1/4th to 1/3rd of the physical
>processor.
Yes, I've seen propaganda about the "upcoming" Emplant/486 as well. Two
years ago. When it actually showed up, people got very quiet about it,
as performance and compatibility were less than promised.
Maybe someone _does_ have experience and _does_ know --- what processor
can the Amiga emulate? Is it up to full 386 emulation yet? If so, how
does doom run on it? Linux?
Or is a full 486 emulation out? If so, how fast (or slow) does it run
Quake, or Linux?
Or is it a 286 level emulation? If so, how fast is Wolfenstein 3D? Minix?
What graphics is emulated, and up to what compatibility level? Does it run
lemmings? Duke Nukem 2? An XServer under Linux?
>> When did that processor hit the market? What was available from Commodore
>> at the time?
>> Answer all these, and say "UAE", and you are in businness.
>Processor? I think it supports 020, yes.
It recently added it to the "supported" list, yes.
>Speed? Maybe 1/20th of the physical processor, and then I'm very nice.
Speed? Well, my Pentium is running the emulation off productivity apps
at A1200 speeds if you reduce the screen refresh rate to every 9th frame
(which comes down to be about 13 times a second, due to the fact that it
only takes 6ms to emulate 20ms of activity by an A500) and at about 70% of
A1200 speed with refresh every emulated frame (which means about 90 frames
drawn per second).
Sure, for playing games, it will be slower --- down to about 20% of the
A1200 speed.
>Runs? Err. Dpaint 4 (Not AGA) is about the limit.
And AGA emulation is fast coming along. How good is VGA emulation for the
emulators on the Amiga? SVGA emulation?
>Usefulness? I don't know. Maybe it's useful to some for some old A500
>games, if you don't mind the low framerate, non-action games would
>probably be OK if you get them to work. Software? Must be read from
>disk on a real Amiga, then transferred to the PC.
Which (expect for reading floppies) goes essentially both ways. UAE is a
neat curiosity, and so are PC emulators on the Amiga.
>I'm getting rather pissed with people saying how good UAE is, they
>who say so cannot have seen an Amiga in the last 4 years. It's very
>well done, I admit that, but it's not very useful.
Sure --- but the reverse is true as well. _I_ am getting sick of people
saying how much better PC emulators for the Amiga are over UAE. Those who
say so must either wear pink glasses, or must not have seen UAE since version
1.0
men...@coloradomtn.edu
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au wrote:
>
> Johan Roennblom <JRo...@ba.ssdn.skellefte.se> writes:
> >bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au wrote:
> >>
> >> Scott Thomas <t...@ricochet.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >Amiga can run various PC items through emulation. The reverse is not
> >> >true.
> >> Oh, of course it is.
> >>
> >> What is the most complex PC processor you can emulate, and at what speed
> >> (and no, I don't call putting a PC-on-a-card into your machine emulation)?
>
> >I've seen in adverts that a 486 works, but I'm not sure it's out
> >yet. Speed? Reasonable, Perhaps 1/4th to 1/3rd of the physical
> >processor.
>
> Yes, I've seen propaganda about the "upcoming" Emplant/486 as well. Two
> years ago. When it actually showed up, people got very quiet about it,
> as performance and compatibility were less than promised.
>
He is probably referring to PCTask 4.0, it is in development, Utilities
Unlimited is dead, so he was obviously not referring to it. Will use
dynamic recompilation. It is not out, yet. Author will not give a
release date, until it is actually ready. Although some adds in the
UK magazines make seem as if its release is imminent (sp?). There is
a web page but I do not have it handy, it is in Australia though.
Gavan Moran
Scott Thomas <t...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>Gavan Moran wrote:
>> And none of the add-on Amiga networking packages come
>> close to the range and functionality of networking protocols built in to
>> Win95 - _full_ tcp/ip, IPX and netbeui with microsoft and novell clients
>> and a _supplied_ browser thats light years ahead of any third party Amiga
>> web browser (internet explorer).
>NetBEUI is poop and you know it.
Its a perfect protocol for a small-office/business setup. It requires
next to no configuration, is faster than TCP/IP and its lack of
routability isn't a problem within the target environment. And of course,
the protocol co-exists quite happily with TCP/IP for internet and wide
area applications.
> And any Amiga add-on which implements
>TCP-IP is ALL the range and functionality you need.
Win95 comes with an excellent, fully functional TCP/IP, easy to
configure TCP/IP _as standard_.
With the Amiga you have a choice of PD/shareware packages with varying
degrees of functionality, complexity and usability - NONE of which even
approach the usability of Microsoft TCP/IP.
> Internet Explorer is
>shit. Navigator is still king,
Thats a moot point since BOTH are available for the PC and NEITHER are
available for the Amiga. Personally I prefer ie3.0 to netscape 3.0 and of
course ie is free with Windows (or for download) so you've nothing to lose
by trying it.
> and a few Amiga browsers are doing quite
>well.
How many Amiga browsers have full frames, JAVA and activeX support?
>> As for the toaster, I wasn't aware it had gained ray tracing powers,
>> last time I checked it was just a 24-bit frame buffer with some sony chips
>> for DVE style effects.
>OK, so you're making it obvious you don't know what you're talking
>about.
Please inform me how the toaster speeds ray-tracing. Its a 24-bit
framebuffer/grabber with chips for DVE effects. It doesn't accelerate
raytracing in any way.
>
>> Exactly. Not that C= did much developement on the Amiga when they owned
>> it. Theres really very little advance in an A1200 on an A1000.
>And here you *really* are clue-less.
So you think C= put a satisfactory amount of development into the
Amiga? The lack of development on the Amiga (at the behest of certain
fuckwit execs. like Ali and Gould) was the single largest reason for its
demise. The A1200 was barely up to the techonological standard when
released in 1993 - now three years later with no developement on it, its
WAY behind the times.
Gavan
--
email: gmo...@nyx.net | "There can be only one"
| - the Highlander
men...@coloradomtn.edu
Gavan Moran wrote:
>
> How many Amiga browsers have full frames, JAVA and activeX support?
>
Quick question, what do you keep bringing up frames. I hate them no end.
They are a worse feature than blink.
joel juillerat
>Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
> I network PCs for a living ... looking at whats available on the Amiga
>for networking makes me very glad I don't have to install Amiga TCP/IP
>packages for a wage. They are typically less functional, nowhere near as
AmiTCP (the Amiga TCP/IP package) is a lame, mostly old versions, full of
cryptics txt config files, new versions have built-in configuration script...
but this is a full-featured tcp/ip package...
> On the PC you plug the card in, Win95 autodetects it (and even
>autoconfigures with most modern cards) and away you go.
just a dream !! in often dont detect your card, and you need to configure
all yourself, getting stupid IRQ and DMA conflicts...
>>Well, there is an upgrade route by which an A1200 can be given a
>>trapdoor processor card, which can later be moved into a blank
>>A4000 tower. It's a route I plan to follow myself, unless
>>AmigaOS turns up on any significantly better hardware.
all amigas models accept CPU cards extensions, so you dont need
to buy a new box to have a more powerful machine...
i am running on a 11 years old box, with a just released CPU board,
which work >100 times the speed of original (on-board) CPU...
>>> >OS3.0 Amigas will often choke because of OS compatibility?
>>> >I have yet to see an OS1.3 program kill my OS3.1 system.
>>> I have had plenty of programs which I used regularly on my old A500
>>> either fall over or worse crash my A1200 - and things got worse when
>>> I added an 030 and fastmem.
you are running (lame) old software, that relies on old hardware and software
(old chipset, Chip RAM only, OS 1.3...), on a new soft and hard...
most pre-2.0 applications do not run on 2.x and even not on 3.x, overall
compatibility is 50%...
quite all post 2.0 applications do run well on 3.x and should also
run well on future versions, overall compatibility is ~100%...
(i have never see a 2.x app that dont work on 3.x)
OS 1.3 was very limited, have only few extensions, many bugs,
so most parts have been re-written...
(dos.library 1.3 have ~30 functions, version 2.0 have ~150 functions !)
>>By all accounts, it should be very easy to write forward
>>compatible code for the AmigaOS, just as it is for, say, UNIX.
i agree...
>Too much amiga software support is from PD/shareware where the authors
>aren't professional enough to write fully-debugged OS compatible software.
they dont have time and money, they do code/debug after work, or sunday,
just for fun...
>Gavan
Benjamin Hutchings
In article <551uff$20...@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
Gavan Moran <gmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
[...]
>> And any Amiga add-on which implements
>>TCP-IP is ALL the range and functionality you need.
>
> Win95 comes with an excellent, fully functional TCP/IP, easy to
>configure TCP/IP _as standard_.
I think that was actually part of the ludicrously-expensive "Plus pack" -
a CD with just 33M of data on it, most of which is advertising for Micro$oft
"multimedia" titles.
> With the Amiga you have a choice of PD/shareware packages with varying
>degrees of functionality, complexity and usability - NONE of which even
>approach the usability of Microsoft TCP/IP.
We use Micro$oft TCP/IP here. It works. But the supplied utilities are shit.
AmiTCP's are fully-featured BSD tools which aren't crippled by the lame
restrictions of MS-DOG and M$'s failure to offer significant improvements
on it under Win95/WinNT.
>> and a few Amiga browsers are doing quite
>>well.
>
> How many Amiga browsers have full frames, JAVA and activeX support?
Frames are mainly a gimmick, but it would be useful to have them as so many
pages use them. The only real use for frames that I have seen is as an
index/contents bar at the top or side of the screen. Java is also mainly
used as a gimmick right now, though I recognise it can be much more. I
don't think we have long to wait for Java now. And besides, IE does *not*
support Java fully at the moment. ActiveX is *evil*! It does not have the
inherent security features of Java - ActiveX classes/controls can do anything
a normal app can do, including formatting your hard disk. The only guarantee
you can have for an ActiveX class is that it is certified safe by Microsoft.
This, no doubt, costs the author, and besides does not really *guarantee*
that it will not accidentally cause trouble (which can be guaranteed for Java
code). Plus, ActiveX is proprietary, whatever M$ might say.
To sum up, I would like to see frames and Java in an Amiga browser soon, but
they are not yet vital. ActiveX is a technological dead-end.
>Amiga? The lack of development on the Amiga (at the behest of certain
>fuckwit execs. like Ali and Gould) was the single largest reason for its
>demise. The A1200 was barely up to the techonological standard when
>released in 1993 - now three years later with no developement on it, its
>WAY behind the times.
Quite true. It seems to me that the A1200 could have been released in 1989,
admittedly sans PCMCIA and ATA interfaces (and preferably *with* a SCSI
interface, SIMM slots and a Z3-like edge-connector). That would have kept
the Amiga ahead of the pack. But instead it took till 1990 just to update
that 3-week-hack GUI and the Workbench which looked like it took at most 2
days to design... and don't mention that crummy BCPL DOS and the kernel
which successfully multitasked only by accident thanks to a couple of bugs
interacting!
--
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
Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer
Benjamin Hutchings
In article <552283$11...@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,> How much?
90 UKP
> Where can I buy it?
Blittersoft
> What software will utilise it?
Trapped and Shapeshifter, maybe some other things
> Will it output to a standard SVGA monitor? If so, what about the
>normal Amiga display?
No, it only supports 15 kHz
> What resolutions will it do?
The standard 15 kHz resolutions (maybe not even SHRes, don't know).
[...]
> We're now even into the realm of full 3-D acceleration on the PC with
>_games_ able to take advantage of a plethora of 3rd party cards thanks to
>a properly defined game/OS interface. Compared to the Amiga where you
>don't even know if your DTP or WP program will work on your gfx card,
>thats heaven.
Hey, but you still have to work to get e.g. Quake to run properly on your
PC in those hi-res modes using the VESA standard (or whatever it is).
[...]
> I network PCs for a living ... looking at whats available on the Amiga
>for networking makes me very glad I don't have to install Amiga TCP/IP
>packages for a wage. They are typically less functional, nowhere near as
>well supported and are all third party addons to the OS. And thats before
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that really relevant? The stack<->driver interface was defined by CBM
and is not violated by ordinary programs. bsdsocket.library is not a CBM
standard but then I don't think WINSOCK.DLL is a MS standard either. And
I don't think the set of utilities supplied with WinNT for TCP/IP is
exactly wonderful compared to AmiTCP.
>you get into the phyiscal hassle of Amiga network connection - first pay a
>fortune for a ZorroII network card if you can even find one (there seems
>to be only the liana left and thats hard to find) and then scramble about
>for the various drivers and hacks needed to get it to work with your
>shareware PD package.
Yeah, actually getting an Ethernet card is a problem. I am seriously
considering writing my own driver for a PCMCIA Ethernet card as I haven't
heard anything back from the last person to try this since I mailed him a
while back.
> I install up to ten PCs a week, ranging from P100s upwards and they can
>all do satifactory full-screen MPEG. Most modern SVGA cards seem to have
>a slight degree of hardware acceleration to allow this, some even have
>full MPEG decoding on board though not as standard.
Well I have yet to see Win95 successfully maintain smooth animation without
stopping from time to time to page some virtual memory. The same thing even
happens with audio as well. I don't think Win95 has any real concept of
real-time media. Sure, a P100 can do MPEG decoding (just), but I would be
surprised if you could actually play back succesfully without the occasional
dropped frame or jitter.
>>BTW, does anyone know -why- so many Amiga programs were hacked
>>together such that they fell apart on later AmigaOS releases,
>>whereas with MSDOS, the same is true of many system functions,
>>but doesn't plague the actual games and applications software?
>
> Because lots of work and money was put into making sure the system
>stayed compatible. Thats the advantage of a well-supported platform.
This also happened with the AmigaOS. You should read some of the developer
notes to hear about the contortions which were necessary to support old apps.
But actually, there seems to be the same sort of fall-out with running old
apps under Win95 as there was during the transition to OS 2.0.
>>By all accounts, it should be very easy to write forward
>>compatible code for the AmigaOS, just as it is for, say, UNIX.
>
> Too much amiga software support is from PD/shareware where the authors
>aren't professional enough to write fully-debugged OS compatible software.
The commercial programmers seem to have been worse in many cases. I don't
think distribution arrangements have much to do with quality of software.
Johan Rönnblom
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au wrote:
> What graphics is emulated, and up to what compatibility level? Does it run
> lemmings? Duke Nukem 2? An XServer under Linux?
There is an X-server for Amiga, so why should you emulate? Btw there is Lemmings too :)
As for graphics, I don't know, but there is a difference - PCTask isn't made for running games,
and thus doesn't have to be full speed, best graphics. UAE OTOH is mostly for games, but IMO it
doesn't deliver.
> >> When did that processor hit the market? What was available from Commodore
> >> at the time?
> >> Answer all these, and say "UAE", and you are in businness.
>
> >Processor? I think it supports 020, yes.
>
> It recently added it to the "supported" list, yes.
Yea. That is like PC-Task would only emulate a 286. AFAIK, the version out does a 386.
> >Speed? Maybe 1/20th of the physical processor, and then I'm very nice.
>
> Speed? Well, my Pentium is running the emulation off productivity apps
> at A1200 speeds if you reduce the screen refresh rate to every 9th frame
> (which comes down to be about 13 times a second, due to the fact that it
> only takes 6ms to emulate 20ms of activity by an A500) and at about 70% of
> A1200 speed with refresh every emulated frame (which means about 90 frames
> drawn per second).
Every 9th frame is 13fps? Doesn't sound like A1200 speed in any way to me..
Then full framerate would be 117fps, which doesn't make sense. 90fps also sounds strange, I
wonder what gfxcard your PC uses?
> Sure, for playing games, it will be slower --- down to about 20% of the
> A1200 speed.
Exactly. And then it doesn't even run A1200 games.
> >Runs? Err. Dpaint 4 (Not AGA) is about the limit.
> And AGA emulation is fast coming along. How good is VGA emulation for the
> emulators on the Amiga? SVGA emulation?
Sorry, I don't know. But PCTask 4 is 'fast coming along' :)
> >Usefulness? I don't know. Maybe it's useful to some for some old A500
> >games, if you don't mind the low framerate, non-action games would
> >probably be OK if you get them to work. Software? Must be read from
> >disk on a real Amiga, then transferred to the PC.
>
> Which (expect for reading floppies) goes essentially both ways. UAE is a
> neat curiosity, and so are PC emulators on the Amiga.
>
> >I'm getting rather pissed with people saying how good UAE is, they
> >who say so cannot have seen an Amiga in the last 4 years. It's very
> >well done, I admit that, but it's not very useful.
> Sure --- but the reverse is true as well. _I_ am getting sick of people
> saying how much better PC emulators for the Amiga are over UAE. Those who
> say so must either wear pink glasses, or must not have seen UAE since version
> 1.0
I agree that both are useless for games, (action games at least) the problem is that out of
every one I've seen praising UAE, all but one used it for games. OTOH, I've never seen anyone
boast PCTask being able to play PC games. Both could be useful for programs, but UAE, with it's
cumbersome disk system (or has HD support been added during the last month?) is rather geared
towards games.
/Johan Rönnblom, Team Amiga
David Corn
On 28 Oct 1996 23:13:04 GMT, worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Benjamin
Hutchings) wrote:
>>> And any Amiga add-on which implements
>>>TCP-IP is ALL the range and functionality you need.
>>
>> Win95 comes with an excellent, fully functional TCP/IP, easy to
>>configure TCP/IP _as standard_.
>
>I think that was actually part of the ludicrously-expensive "Plus pack" -
>a CD with just 33M of data on it, most of which is advertising for Micro$oft
>"multimedia" titles.
I see. Well, you'd be wrong.
>We use Micro$oft TCP/IP here. It works. But the supplied utilities are shit.
How so? They've got so much free, high quality stuff it isn't even
funny. How is it "shit"?
>AmiTCP's are fully-featured BSD tools which aren't crippled by the lame
>restrictions of MS-DOG and M$'s failure to offer significant improvements
>on it under Win95/WinNT.
I see. I agree WinNT-W has some limitations, but I think we're
talking about Win95 here. What are those limitations? I don't see
them, yet I'm very happy with Win95's IP tools - I believe they're the
best available for PC/Mac/Amiga/Atari/whathaveyou.
>> How many Amiga browsers have full frames, JAVA and activeX support?
>
>Frames are mainly a gimmick, but it would be useful to have them as so many
No, they aren't a gimmick. I think this is knocking something just
because you (alone, it appears) don't have it. Even the *Mac* <g> has
it!
>To sum up, I would like to see frames and Java in an Amiga browser soon, but
>they are not yet vital. ActiveX is a technological dead-end.
You might not like the implementation, but ActiveX is hardly a tech.
dead end. It does have problems, but technology and implementation
aren't among them.
Gavan Moran
Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>Gavan Moran wrote:
>> Just how easy is it to add chunky gfx to an A1200 then?
This would be the mythical 'graffitti' card I presume?
How much?
Where can I buy it?
What software will utilise it?
Will it output to a standard SVGA monitor? If so, what about the
normal Amiga display?
What resolutions will it do?
>> And even the machines which support gfx cards have problems with all
>> software being compatible with the new card - this is because AmigaDOS
>> doesn't have RTG and assumes an ECS or AGA chipset as standard.
>> Thus you have to rely on unnofficial hacks with varying
>> degrees of compatiblity if you want SVGA style graphics.
>As a rule, such AmigaOS expansions are often very system friendly
>additions. AmigaOS is designed to be easily expandible. The Hacks
>are in the actual applications and especially in the games software.
>Are you saying that to run a program that tries to open it's own
>native AGA screens, the CyberGFX card has to be removed?
Certainly not - there are valid reasons why an app might need an AGA
screen. What I am saying is that apps that don't specifically need the
AGA chipset should all work out of the box on a gfx card that has the
required resolution/colour depth that the app requires - they don't. On
windows with proper RTG, virtually EVERY program works on every gfx card
that can provide enough pixels and colours and will benefit from
acceleration on the card.
We're now even into the realm of full 3-D acceleration on the PC with
_games_ able to take advantage of a plethora of 3rd party cards thanks to
a properly defined game/OS interface. Compared to the Amiga where you
don't even know if your DTP or WP program will work on your gfx card,
thats heaven.
>> And none of the add-on Amiga networking packages come close to the
>> range and functionality of networking protocols built in to Win95
>How carefully have you researched that statement?
I network PCs for a living ... looking at whats available on the Amiga
for networking makes me very glad I don't have to install Amiga TCP/IP
packages for a wage. They are typically less functional, nowhere near as
well supported and are all third party addons to the OS. And thats before
you get into the phyiscal hassle of Amiga network connection - first pay a
fortune for a ZorroII network card if you can even find one (there seems
to be only the liana left and thats hard to find) and then scramble about
for the various drivers and hacks needed to get it to work with your
shareware PD package.
On the PC you plug the card in, Win95 autodetects it (and even
autoconfigures with most modern cards) and away you go.
>> _full_ tcp/ip, IPX and netbeui with microsoft and novell clients
>> and a _supplied_ browser thats light years ahead of any third
>> party Amiga web browser (internet explorer).
>I take it Light Years Ahead represents having Java support?
Java, frames, activeX, plugins. And of course the advantage of
typically running on a machine with a large, high-depth screen (even a
basic 800x600 256 colour screen is miles better than any amiga resolution)
though thats more a facility of the hardware than the browser itself.
>> If you have an A1200, forget ethernet or decent SVGA gfx.
>Well, there is an upgrade route by which an A1200 can be given a
>trapdoor processor card, which can later be moved into a blank
>A4000 tower. It's a route I plan to follow myself, unless
>AmigaOS turns up on any significantly better hardware.
Thats a hell of a lot of work and money for a kludged machine.
>> >> expensive peripherals,
>> >Like what? My Maxtor 1.3G HD cost #130,
>> >and my 8M SIMM is a standard 70ns model.
>>
>> Peripherals like multisync monitors capable of going to 15kHz,
>There are interfaces available for attaching cheaper screens.
On the A1200, you're stuck with either two monitors or limiting yourself
to either 15 or 30 khz modes. The A4000 is slightly better, but last time
I looked it was somthing like 200 quid just for a flicker fixer card to
make standard modes visible on a SVGA monitor, never mind the 300 quid for
an outdated S3 gfx card.
>> >Okay, our fastest processor is the 68060@50MHz.
>> >There's the toaster if you want raytracing grunt power.
>> >What else do you use a 200MHz Pentium for?
>>
>> Try getting full-screen software MPEG video decoding out of a
>> typical Amiga - you can do it on nearly all modern PCs.
>Really? I see a lot of flickering going on in most high street
>display demos. Come to that, full screen is hardly a standard.
I install up to ten PCs a week, ranging from P100s upwards and they can
all do satifactory full-screen MPEG. Most modern SVGA cards seem to have
a slight degree of hardware acceleration to allow this, some even have
full MPEG decoding on board though not as standard.
>> Win95 simplifies things enormously. Once you have your 16-bit
>> soundcard installed under Windows and your network card and your
>> 3-D gfx card you will find that the majority of new games run
>> straight out of the box AND utilise the hardware you have bought.
>> How many Amiga games will utilise gfx cards,
>> 16 bit sound and network cards?
>How many Win95 games are out there? Proportionally speaking,
>the figures are probably similar, Windows 95 and the Amiga
>upgrades you mention being similarly new arrivals.
There seems to be a blizzard of new win95 games ... most recent
releases have started to come in DirectX versions. Doom 95, Marathon,
Swiv 3D, Mechwarrior 2, Virtua Fighter, Space Hulk VOTBA ... And even on
a 486/66 with shitty SVGA card many are playable. On a pentium with nice
PCI card, they're awesome. And we haven't even begun the see the games
that really use the 3D cards yet, but they are coming.
>> >OS3.0 Amigas will often choke because of OS compatibility?
>> >I have yet to see an OS1.3 program kill my OS3.1 system.
>>
>> I have had plenty of programs which I used regularly on my old A500
>> either fall over or worse crash my A1200 - and things got worse when
>> I added an 030 and fastmem.
>Such as.. ?
Games and Demos (of course), Sound Trackers, Directory utilities, a
load of PD stuff off 17-bit CDROMs.
>BTW, does anyone know -why- so many Amiga programs were hacked
>together such that they fell apart on later AmigaOS releases,
>whereas with MSDOS, the same is true of many system functions,
>but doesn't plague the actual games and applications software?
Because lots of work and money was put into making sure the system
stayed compatible. Thats the advantage of a well-supported platform.
>By all accounts, it should be very easy to write forward
>compatible code for the AmigaOS, just as it is for, say, UNIX.
Too much amiga software support is from PD/shareware where the authors
aren't professional enough to write fully-debugged OS compatible software.
Gavan
Marc Forrester
Gavan Moran wrote:
> >> Just how easy is it to add chunky gfx to an A1200 then?
>
>
> How much?
Too much? :)
> What software will utilise it?
AFAIK, Trapped does? And anything that uses one
of the general rtg libraries on Aminet, presumably.
> Certainly not - there are valid reasons why an app might need an AGA
> screen. What I am saying is that apps that don't specifically need
> the AGA chipset should all work out of the box on a gfx card that has
> the required resolution/colour depth that the app requires -
> they don't.
So they're still comparitively slow and need Chip Ram?
That's unpleasant. Hopefully this situation will improve
with any further creations that stand to benfit from the
use of graphics cards. (IE: Games and big screens)
> >Well, there is an upgrade route by which an A1200 can be given a
> >trapdoor processor card, which can later be moved into a blank
> >A4000 tower. It's a route I plan to follow myself, unless
> >AmigaOS turns up on any significantly better hardware.
>
> Thats a hell of a lot of work and money for a kludged machine.
Well, certainly a lot of money. The work side I kind of enjoy.
If 'Kludged machine' bothered me, I'd be saving for a BeBox..
(Not that I'm saying I necessarily won't)
> >> Try getting full-screen software MPEG video decoding out of a
> >> typical Amiga - you can do it on nearly all modern PCs.
>
> >Really? I see a lot of flickering going on in most high street
> >display demos. Come to that, full screen is hardly a standard.
>
> I install up to ten PCs a week, ranging from P100s upwards and they
> can all do satifactory full-screen MPEG. Most modern SVGA cards seem
> to have a slight degree of hardware acceleration to allow this,
Well, perhaps it's just Europe, but in my experiences with IBM's,
modern SVGA cards have been something of a rarity.. What about
with a fully specced machine on both sides? (No MPEG decoders)
> There seems to be a blizzard of new win95 games ... most recent
> releases have started to come in DirectX versions. Doom 95, Marathon,
> Swiv 3D, Mechwarrior 2, Virtua Fighter, Space Hulk VOTBA ... And even
> on a 486/66 with shitty SVGA card many are playable.
This seems to indicate that it would be a good idea for all future
Amiga 3D games to support graphics cards, people. Are there any in
development that don't plan to? They must be persuaded..
> >BTW, does anyone know -why- so many Amiga programs were hacked
> >together such that they fell apart on later AmigaOS releases,
> >whereas with MSDOS, the same is true of many system functions,
> >but doesn't plague the actual games and applications software?
>
> Because lots of work and money was put into making sure the system
> stayed compatible. Thats the advantage of a well-supported platform.
Strange that 'hack' is generally used as derogatory, really.
> >By all accounts, it should be very easy to write forward
> >compatible code for the AmigaOS, just as it is for, say, UNIX.
>
> Too much amiga software support is from PD/shareware where the
> authors aren't professional enough to write fully-debugged OS
> compatible software.
Hmm. I'm not sure there's anything in it.. It may even be that
PD/Shareware is on the whole better at being OS compatible than
old 'professional' stuff. Certainly it's the PD world that
produces all of the fixer programs for these problems..
And a great deal of UNIX development is non-professional.
Fabio Bizzetti
>> On the PC you plug the card in, Win95 autodetects it (and even
>>autoconfigures with most modern cards) and away you go.
>just a dream !!
Indeed. It's called "Plug n'Pray" after the second time you used it..
> in often dont detect your card, and you need to configure
>all yourself, getting stupid IRQ and DMA conflicts...
That's true for Windows95, but most of the problems in Dos are cause by
silly programmers. It has been ages that they invented the Blaster env
variable, that holds all the config informations you need to use the
Sound Blaster in a computer, but lotsa PC programmers ignore it and
always ask to enter manually those parameters..
IMHO on PC the biggest fault is of the system programmers, then of the
hardware engineers, then of the applications programmers, then of the
users, then of the vendors.
Not that I like to distribute faults, but the PC has some evident problem
when it comes to its hardware/software.
The A1000 was a true "Plug n'Play" system, its AutoConfig system works.
---------------------------------------
Fabio Bizzetti - bizz...@mbox.vol.it
David Corn
On 28 Oct 1996 23:29:14 GMT, worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Benjamin
Hutchings) wrote:
>> How much?
>
>90 UKP
ROTFL. $180 bucks to get a simple color increase card working?
You're kidding, right?
>> What software will utilise it?
>
>Trapped and Shapeshifter, maybe some other things
"Maybe"? Again, you're kidding, right?
>> Will it output to a standard SVGA monitor? If so, what about the
>>normal Amiga display?
>No, it only supports 15 kHz
Simply amazing.
>> What resolutions will it do?
>The standard 15 kHz resolutions (maybe not even SHRes, don't know).
Amazing.
>Hey, but you still have to work to get e.g. Quake to run properly on your
>PC in those hi-res modes using the VESA standard (or whatever it is).
My cards work fine in Quake. Of course, my old Stealth 64 VRAM
requires a S3vbe20.exe to run, if I want to play 640x480 or other VESA
modes, but I don't consider that difficult. I simply type the name of
the program - there's no other configuration.
>Is that really relevant? The stack<->driver interface was defined by CBM
>and is not violated by ordinary programs. bsdsocket.library is not a CBM
>standard but then I don't think WINSOCK.DLL is a MS standard either. And
>I don't think the set of utilities supplied with WinNT for TCP/IP is
>exactly wonderful compared to AmiTCP.
AmiTCP stacks aren't even compatible! (Source: IBROWSE 1.02 home
page) There's just no comparison.
>Yeah, actually getting an Ethernet card is a problem. I am seriously
>considering writing my own driver for a PCMCIA Ethernet card as I haven't
>heard anything back from the last person to try this since I mailed him a
>while back.
But I thought there were loads of A1200 Ethernet cards. You mean that
isn't true?
TYMOTHY DJ
David Corn <dco...@paradise.pplnet.com> writes:
>>We use Micro$oft TCP/IP here. It works. But the supplied utilities are shit.
>
>How so? They've got so much free, high quality stuff it isn't even
>funny. How is it "shit"?
all other TCP/IP makers are going down the tubes,
I would half to agree with the "shit" part.
The built in utilites were *not* changed from
WFW - and they were not good then. They are *very*
basic and should have been updated.
>I see. I agree WinNT-W has some limitations, but I think we're
>talking about Win95 here. What are those limitations? I don't see
>them, yet I'm very happy with Win95's IP tools - I believe they're the
>best available for PC/Mac/Amiga/Atari/whathaveyou.
could not be more wrong. You could say that they
were "adequate" but they are hardly the best.
There are better ones on almost *any* platform.
Take FTP for example.
>No, they aren't a gimmick. I think this is knocking something just
>because you (alone, it appears) don't have it. Even the *Mac* <g> has
>it!
browser that got them right, but that does not mean
anything. They are not something that has lasting
value, any more thatn the *gimmick* of picture in
picture on TV sets.
Java on the other hand is something that is used
as a gimmick, but has potential to be more.
>
Tymothy DJ
Yilbber VArgas
ALLL NEW WOrd processors and Utililiies support RTG
All that didn't use Amos basix or some custom screen that does not
support the Public screen tag...
Pagestream 3.x and Final writer,Gold Editor,BEd,Wordworth all support
the new graphics cards with pagestream 3 being able to work with the
24bit modes.
The only things that don't work are old things made before GFX cards
were geting popular ...
Back in the early 90's most software is not retargetted at all and just
uses pal and ntsc through hacking away in assembly
Most old games arewritten in assembly wheil most new games are written
in C/c"" on many platforms....
those bieng written in C or Amos wit h piublic screens work on grafix
cards out of the box....
You are such a dim knot
Oct 1996, Gavan
Moran wrote:
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:49:49 GMT
> From: Gavan Moran <gmo...@nyx.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games, comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
> Subject: Re: BABYLON 5: They`re using crap PC`s
Scott Thomas
> > I network PCs for a living ... looking at whats available on the Amiga
> > for networking makes me very glad I don't have to install Amiga TCP/IP
> > packages for a wage. They are typically less functional, nowhere near as
> > well supported and are all third party addons to the OS. And thats before
> > you get into the phyiscal hassle of Amiga network connection - first pay a
> > fortune for a ZorroII network card if you can even find one (there seems
> > to be only the liana left and thats hard to find) and then scramble about
> > for the various drivers and hacks needed to get it to work with your
> > shareware PD package.
Networking systems is also one of my tasks as a Systems Consultant here
in Silicon Valley. I wouldn't mind a bit networking Amigas. TCP/IP is a
decent protocol. IPX? We toss that crap (as well as Novell) and use
either a 3rd party IP or M$'s TCP/IP for Windows or NT.
Stop whining and get a real skill set.
warp
Scott Thomas wrote:
> > > I network PCs for a living ... looking at whats available on the Amiga
> > > for networking makes me very glad I don't have to install Amiga TCP/IP
> > > packages for a wage. They are typically less functional, nowhere near as
> > > well supported and are all third party addons to the OS. And thats before
> > > you get into the phyiscal hassle of Amiga network connection - first pay a
> > > fortune for a ZorroII network card if you can even find one (there seems
> > > to be only the liana left and thats hard to find) and then scramble about
> > > for the various drivers and hacks needed to get it to work with your
> > > shareware PD package.
> in Silicon Valley. I wouldn't mind a bit networking Amigas. TCP/IP is a
> decent protocol. IPX? We toss that crap (as well as Novell) and use
> either a 3rd party IP or M$'s TCP/IP for Windows or NT.
I network pc's to for a living, AmigaTCP/IP ain't that bad at all...;-)
Ciao, wARP!
Benjamin Hutchings
In article <32815f80...@news.onramp.net>,
David Corn <dco...@paradise.pplnet.com> wrote:
[...]
>AmiTCP stacks aren't even compatible! (Source: IBROWSE 1.02 home
>page) There's just no comparison.
That's the first I've heard of it. Are you referring to "AmiTCP 3.0b2 or
later, As225, In225, or..." on the "requirements" page? Yes, there are two
different APIs for TCP/IP stacks - the AS-225 socket.library and the AmiTCP
bsdsocket.library. But all the other TCP/IP stacks are compatible with one
of these two, and there is a socket.library available which works as a
gateway to bsdsocket.libray. There may be a bsdsocket.library which does
the reverse now.
>>Yeah, actually getting an Ethernet card is a problem. I am seriously
>>considering writing my own driver for a PCMCIA Ethernet card as I haven't
>>heard anything back from the last person to try this since I mailed him a
>>while back.
>
>But I thought there were loads of A1200 Ethernet cards. You mean that
>isn't true?
I have just found some info about an Ethernet card (PCMCIA) which does have
an Amiga driver. Unfortunately this was the only one I saw listed on the
Crusaders Amiga web pages. There may be drivers in development for other
cards.
--
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
Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. - Fred Brooks
Benjamin Hutchings
In article <32858a22...@news.onramp.net>,
>
>How so? They've got so much free, high quality stuff it isn't even
>funny. How is it "shit"?
It isn't free. It just happens to come with the OS, which isn't cheap.
Now, take "telnet" for Win95 and WinNT. Start telnet. Is the window full
80x25 size? No. Can you change and save the size? No.
Now dump a file in the telnet window and select some text. Click again to
unlock the window. Now you will find that although telnet has buffered all
the extra characters, it won't render any of them. Every time you press a
key and get a response, one more character of the buffered text will appear.
Time to close the connection and start again...
How about "ftp". It has some quite nice features but... no .netrc? Press
Ctrl-C to break a command, and you exit ftp completely? Nice...
Have they implemented all the options for ping and traceroute which you
could get if they just ported the BSD source? Nope, instead you get cut-
down versions.
>>AmiTCP's are fully-featured BSD tools which aren't crippled by the lame
>>restrictions of MS-DOG and M$'s failure to offer significant improvements
>>on it under Win95/WinNT.
>
>I see. I agree WinNT-W has some limitations, but I think we're
>talking about Win95 here. What are those limitations? I don't see
>them, yet I'm very happy with Win95's IP tools - I believe they're the
>best available for PC/Mac/Amiga/Atari/whathaveyou.
Well unless you have some special whizzy tools which I haven't seen, you
are sadly mistaken.
>>> How many Amiga browsers have full frames, JAVA and activeX support?
>>
>>Frames are mainly a gimmick, but it would be useful to have them as so many
>
>No, they aren't a gimmick. I think this is knocking something just
>because you (alone, it appears) don't have it. Even the *Mac* <g> has
>it!
"The Mac" doesn't have "it". Netscape Navigator supports frames. There are
a *lot* of pages which seriously over-use frames. Frames are useful...indeed
it is essential to support them now if you want to be able to render most
current web pages. But frames aren't as wonderful or useful as some people
seem to have suggested when they were first introduced.
>>To sum up, I would like to see frames and Java in an Amiga browser soon, but
>>they are not yet vital. ActiveX is a technological dead-end.
>
>You might not like the implementation, but ActiveX is hardly a tech.
>dead end. It does have problems, but technology and implementation
>aren't among them.
How will ActiveX ever be made safe and secure? This is a serious problem
with the implementation, no?
--
Ben Hutchings,|finger m95...@booth42.ecs.ox.ac.uk|mail benjamin.hutchings@
compsci&mathmo|lynx http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223|worcester.oxford.ac.uk
Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain. - Lily Tomlin
David Corn
On 1 Nov 1996 03:15:49 GMT, worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Benjamin
Hutchings) wrote:
>In article <32858a22...@news.onramp.net>,
>David Corn <dco...@paradise.pplnet.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>>We use Micro$oft TCP/IP here. It works. But the supplied utilities are shit.
>>
>>How so? They've got so much free, high quality stuff it isn't even
>>funny. How is it "shit"?
>It isn't free. It just happens to come with the OS, which isn't cheap.
It's cheap compared to, say, AmigaDOS 3.x. First they made you pay
for the ROM *and* the disk, then to go to 3.1 you had to pay *again*
for the disks (and you paid out the nose, too!). Compare that to
Win95 for $90 for most people - assuming you've not bought a PC
recently.
MSIE's Mail 1.0 is free. MSIE 3.0 is free. MSIE's News 1.0 is free.
MSIE's Netmeeting 1.0 is free. 2.0 is free, too, and in beta now.
Comic Chat is free, and it's kinda neat, too. There are dozens of
other _really_ neat utilities to be had on their home page. What's
not to like?
>Now, take "telnet" for Win95 and WinNT. Start telnet. Is the window full
>80x25 size? No. Can you change and save the size? No.
Telnet? Wow...I haven't used that in a long time. I guess I'm just
not interested in Unix when I've got a Win95 box on my desk, so minor
problems (if you can call it that; I think you're reaching) don't
affect me.
>Now dump a file in the telnet window and select some text. Click again to
>unlock the window. Now you will find that although telnet has buffered all
>the extra characters, it won't render any of them. Every time you press a
>key and get a response, one more character of the buffered text will appear.
>Time to close the connection and start again...
Hmm...never seen this. You really use Telnet?
>How about "ftp". It has some quite nice features but... no .netrc? Press
>Ctrl-C to break a command, and you exit ftp completely? Nice...
Why use this? CuteFTP is free, and works very well. But MSIE3.0 is
free, too, and works well too. I guess I have a hard time seeing why
I'd use FTP rather than CuteFTP or (99% of the time) MSIE3 for
grabbing files. Can you tell me why?
>Have they implemented all the options for ping and traceroute which you
>could get if they just ported the BSD source? Nope, instead you get cut-
>down versions.
Gosh...I never noticed this either. Could it be most people don't
care? When I do a tracert it gives me all the information I want.
nbtstat -R is about all I need as far as command-line utilities...
>>I see. I agree WinNT-W has some limitations, but I think we're
>>talking about Win95 here. What are those limitations? I don't see
>>them, yet I'm very happy with Win95's IP tools - I believe they're the
>>best available for PC/Mac/Amiga/Atari/whathaveyou.
>Well unless you have some special whizzy tools which I haven't seen, you
>are sadly mistaken.
In the Win95 package, sure. Go on down to www.windows95.com and check
out what they've got there, then get back to me. I don't want command
line crap anymore - I want easy to use, pleasant, no manual- or little
manual-required GUI stuff.
>>No, they aren't a gimmick. I think this is knocking something just
>>because you (alone, it appears) don't have it. Even the *Mac* <g> has
>>it!
>"The Mac" doesn't have "it". Netscape Navigator supports frames. There are
Err..no kidding. The Mac has Navigator. When will the Amiga get some
quality software with modern features for it for the Web, including
frames?
>a *lot* of pages which seriously over-use frames. Frames are useful...indeed
>it is essential to support them now if you want to be able to render most
>current web pages. But frames aren't as wonderful or useful as some people
>seem to have suggested when they were first introduced.
Sure, but you yourself said they're essential...
Scott Thomas
David Corn (>) and Benjamin Hutchings (>>) wrote:
> First they made you pay for the ROM *and* the disk, then to go to 3.1 you had
> to pay *again* for the disks (and you paid out the nose, too!). Compare that to
> Win95 for $90 for most people - assuming you've not bought a PC recently.
Get DOS 6.22 CostOne
Get Win 3.xx CostTwo
Get Win95 CostThree
Sorry Dave, same logic. Upgrades are upgrades irreguardless or platform.
> >Now, take "telnet" for Win95 and WinNT. Start telnet. Is the window full
> >80x25 size? No. Can you change and save the size? No.
>
> Telnet? Wow...I haven't used that in a long time. I guess I'm just
> not interested in Unix when I've got a Win95 box on my desk, so minor
> problems (if you can call it that; I think you're reaching) don't
> affect me.
But pros have to use UNIX. I use Telnet every day. Did you know that
industry analysts here in SV are reccomending that users do NOT buy
Win95? Because it will be superceded next year? With (possibly) a
version of NT? WHICH HAS TELNET UTILITIES???? M$ realizes that their
consumer user base has to be satisfied with their professional user
base.
If a M$ Office-like app group existed for UNIX at the same price, most
pros (in my experience) would dump M$ operating systems and FEs like hot
rocks.
> >Have they implemented all the options for ping and traceroute which you
> >could get if they just ported the BSD source? Nope, instead you get cut-
> >down versions.
>
> Gosh...I never noticed this either. Could it be most people don't
> care? When I do a tracert it gives me all the information I want.
> nbtstat -R is about all I need as far as command-line utilities...
Most people in the Inet business DO care.
> I agree WinNT-W has some limitations, but I think we're talking about Win95 here.
Which is not as resilient or useful as Win NT.
> , yet I'm very happy with Win95's IP tools - I believe they're the
> best available for PC/Mac/Amiga/Atari/whathaveyou.
Oh, I think *this* says a great deal about you, David.
men...@coloradomtn.edu
David Corn wrote:
>
> On 1 Nov 1996 03:15:49 GMT, worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Benjamin
> Hutchings) wrote:
>
> >In article <32858a22...@news.onramp.net>,
> >David Corn <dco...@paradise.pplnet.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> >>>We use Micro$oft TCP/IP here. It works. But the supplied utilities are shit.
> >>
> >>How so? They've got so much free, high quality stuff it isn't even
> >>funny. How is it "shit"?
>
> >It isn't free. It just happens to come with the OS, which isn't cheap.
>
> for the ROM *and* the disk, then to go to 3.1 you had to pay *again*
> for the disks (and you paid out the nose, too!). Compare that to
> Win95 for $90 for most people - assuming you've not bought a PC
> recently.
>
> MSIE's Netmeeting 1.0 is free. 2.0 is free, too, and in beta now.
> Comic Chat is free, and it's kinda neat, too. There are dozens of
> other _really_ neat utilities to be had on their home page. What's
> not to like?
>
> >80x25 size? No. Can you change and save the size? No.
>
> Telnet? Wow...I haven't used that in a long time. I guess I'm just
> not interested in Unix when I've got a Win95 box on my desk, so minor
> problems (if you can call it that; I think you're reaching) don't
> affect me.
What does not being interested in Unix got to do with telnet. Telnet
is a way to connect to other systems like Unix, VMS, MVS, a cray maybe,
get the picture. And it is a very important consideration for some.
Doesn't affect you, what are you the world. You decide what is and
isn't important to other people.
So tell me David, what is the difference between vt-100 and DEC VT-100
those are options when you connect. You can't swap the BS-Delete keys
which is real annoying if you are used to a real vt100 or better.
The PF1-PF4 keys are not defined, meaning if use EVE, you will be beating
your head against a wall in seconds. Using screen oriented apps, nothing
works right, it is writing in the wrong place, scrolling the screen up
when current stuff should be locked in position. If you are already
connected and then do a connect to previously connected host in the
connect menu, you are disconnected from your previous session. And
this is just playing with it for a couple of minutes. MS's telnet is
pathetic, it is worthless for our uses, and probably most peoples.
>
> >Now dump a file in the telnet window and select some text. Click again to
> >unlock the window. Now you will find that although telnet has buffered all
> >the extra characters, it won't render any of them. Every time you press a
> >key and get a response, one more character of the buffered text will appear.
> >Time to close the connection and start again...
>
> Hmm...never seen this. You really use Telnet?
>
> >How about "ftp". It has some quite nice features but... no .netrc? Press
> >Ctrl-C to break a command, and you exit ftp completely? Nice...
>
> Why use this? CuteFTP is free, and works very well. But MSIE3.0 is
> free, too, and works well too. I guess I have a hard time seeing why
> I'd use FTP rather than CuteFTP or (99% of the time) MSIE3 for
> grabbing files. Can you tell me why?
But weren't you discussing win95's builtin tools, and it is only as
free as your conscious (sp?) allows since it appears to be shareware.
>
> >Have they implemented all the options for ping and traceroute which you
> >could get if they just ported the BSD source? Nope, instead you get cut-
> >down versions.
>
> Gosh...I never noticed this either. Could it be most people don't
> care? When I do a tracert it gives me all the information I want.
> nbtstat -R is about all I need as far as command-line utilities...
Yes, but some people do care.
>
> >>I see. I agree WinNT-W has some limitations, but I think we're
> >>talking about Win95 here. What are those limitations? I don't see
> >>them, yet I'm very happy with Win95's IP tools - I believe they're the
> >>best available for PC/Mac/Amiga/Atari/whathaveyou.
>
"whathaveyou" so your saying they are better than Unix tools, or the VMS
implementations of those tools (for a little info VMS has about 5 TCP/IP
stack implementation 1 DEC, 1 free, the rest 3rd party).
If you want to try a third party stack with a full suite of tools for
win95, try TGV they are at www.tgv.com, they have a free trial period.
> >Well unless you have some special whizzy tools which I haven't seen, you
> >are sadly mistaken.
>
> In the Win95 package, sure. Go on down to www.windows95.com and check
> out what they've got there, then get back to me. I don't want command
> line crap anymore - I want easy to use, pleasant, no manual- or little
> manual-required GUI stuff.
>
Ya, typing ping <options> <address> is so diffucult. And if you didn't
know what ping was, how would a gui for the program help.
> >>No, they aren't a gimmick. I think this is knocking something just
> >>because you (alone, it appears) don't have it. Even the *Mac* <g> has
> >>it!
>
> >"The Mac" doesn't have "it". Netscape Navigator supports frames. There are
>
> Err..no kidding. The Mac has Navigator. When will the Amiga get some
> quality software with modern features for it for the Web, including
> frames?
I hate frames, they are useless to me. If there was some way to turn them
off I would. Oh, wait there is, I use lynx and mosaic.
>
> >a *lot* of pages which seriously over-use frames. Frames are useful...indeed
> >it is essential to support them now if you want to be able to render most
> >current web pages. But frames aren't as wonderful or useful as some people
> >seem to have suggested when they were first introduced.
>
> Sure, but you yourself said they're essential...
"..." = "to support", not the same as useful or wonderful.
Benjamin Hutchings
In article <329b7bce...@news.onramp.net>,
>>80x25 size? No. Can you change and save the size? No.
>
>Telnet? Wow...I haven't used that in a long time. I guess I'm just
>not interested in Unix when I've got a Win95 box on my desk, so minor
>problems (if you can call it that; I think you're reaching) don't
>affect me.
I like the free C compiler you get with Win95... oh sorry, my mistake, there
aren't any free C compilers for Win95. Better use Unix then. Well anyway
I mainly use WinNT to telnet to my Unix account where I have my own mailbox,
web space, etc.
>>Now dump a file in the telnet window and select some text. Click again to
>>unlock the window. Now you will find that although telnet has buffered all
>>the extra characters, it won't render any of them. Every time you press a
>>key and get a response, one more character of the buffered text will appear.
>>Time to close the connection and start again...
>
>Hmm...never seen this. You really use Telnet?
Yes. I'm using it right now.
>>How about "ftp". It has some quite nice features but... no .netrc? Press
>>Ctrl-C to break a command, and you exit ftp completely? Nice...
>
>Why use this? CuteFTP is free, and works very well. But MSIE3.0 is
>free, too, and works well too. I guess I have a hard time seeing why
>I'd use FTP rather than CuteFTP or (99% of the time) MSIE3 for
>grabbing files. Can you tell me why?
I often use CuteFTP too. I don't like it much though. First of all it seems
impossible to fetch files without getting directory listings, which takes a
long time if the route to the ftp server is congested. Secondly it has a lot
of bugs (at least the version we have here, which is "1.4 Final Beta 7").
e.g. It won't save an edited site list, and if you mistype your password it
will retry repeatedly, causing the remote host to disable your account
temporarily. And CuteFTP is *not* part of the standard software which comes
with Win95/NT which is what I thought we were talking about.
>>Have they implemented all the options for ping and traceroute which you
>>could get if they just ported the BSD source? Nope, instead you get cut-
>>down versions.
>
>Gosh...I never noticed this either. Could it be most people don't
>care? When I do a tracert it gives me all the information I want.
>nbtstat -R is about all I need as far as command-line utilities...
ping: can't set the rate at which to ping, can't use quiet output, can't
set the packet size, can't show verbose output
traceroute: various esoteric options missing which are probably useful to
a sysadmin
>>Well unless you have some special whizzy tools which I haven't seen, you
>>are sadly mistaken.
>
>In the Win95 package, sure. Go on down to www.windows95.com and check
>out what they've got there, then get back to me. I don't want command
>line crap anymore - I want easy to use, pleasant, no manual- or little
>manual-required GUI stuff.
Obviously you have no need for really powerful tools then. Because powerful
tools are simply not compatible with the point-and-click mentality. If you
are serious about networking, or about any application, you will RTFM.
Online help doesn't cut it when it comes to real understanding.
>>a *lot* of pages which seriously over-use frames. Frames are useful...indeed
>>it is essential to support them now if you want to be able to render most
>>current web pages. But frames aren't as wonderful or useful as some people
>>seem to have suggested when they were first introduced.
>
>Sure, but you yourself said they're essential...
It is essential that the browser supports them. For most of the uses people
have put them to on web pages, they are not essential. This is a distinction
you seem to be blind to.
--
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
Logic doesn't apply to the real world. - Marvin Minsky
David Corn
On Fri, 01 Nov 1996 09:46:52 -0800, Scott Thomas <t...@ricochet.net>
wrote:
>David Corn (>) and Benjamin Hutchings (>>) wrote:
>
>> First they made you pay for the ROM *and* the disk, then to go to 3.1 you had
>> to pay *again* for the disks (and you paid out the nose, too!). Compare that to
>> Win95 for $90 for most people - assuming you've not bought a PC recently.
>
>Get DOS 6.22 CostOne
>Get Win 3.xx CostTwo
>Get Win95 CostThree
PC->
No. Get DOS+Win with your system. Get the Win95 upgrade for $90.
Amiga->
Get 2.04 or 2.1 with your system. Upgrade (Big Money$) to 3.0, then
upgrade again (More Big Money$) to 3.1. And hope your motherboard
doesn't have problems with the ROM upgrade (remember the A500 and
cutting traces on the motherboard? More money!)
>Sorry Dave, same logic. Upgrades are upgrades irreguardless or platform.
Sure, but one's expensive, and the other's just $90.
>But pros have to use UNIX. I use Telnet every day. Did you know that
No, pros don't "have" to use UNIX, or anything else for that matter.
>industry analysts here in SV are reccomending that users do NOT buy
>Win95? Because it will be superceded next year? With (possibly) a
>version of NT? WHICH HAS TELNET UTILITIES???? M$ realizes that their
>consumer user base has to be satisfied with their professional user
>base.
Not in the least. They recommend that people buy what they need. If
you need NT, more power to you, but if you think the general user
cares about a resizeable Telnet window, you're sadly mistaken.
>If a M$ Office-like app group existed for UNIX at the same price, most
>pros (in my experience) would dump M$ operating systems and FEs like hot
>rocks.
I see. Too bad it doesn't (apparently...since the pros haven't...)
>> Gosh...I never noticed this either. Could it be most people don't
>> care? When I do a tracert it gives me all the information I want.
>> nbtstat -R is about all I need as far as command-line utilities...
>
>Most people in the Inet business DO care.
I see. Well, I'll be the first to acknowlege that many ISPs are run
on UNIX boxes - that's certainly true. So? The general public
doesn't care about tracert functions not being up to
(insert-your-favorite-unix-blend-here) levels.
>> I agree WinNT-W has some limitations, but I think we're talking about Win95 here.
>Which is not as resilient or useful as Win NT.
To you, maybe not.
>> , yet I'm very happy with Win95's IP tools - I believe they're the
>> best available for PC/Mac/Amiga/Atari/whathaveyou.
>
>Oh, I think *this* says a great deal about you, David.
You might check out www.windows95.com and tell me what you think. I
don't *want* CLI tools that require a book to learn - I want fast,
easy to use, friendly tools. I guess this does say a lot about me.
David Corn
>As for graphics, I don't know, but there is a difference - PCTask isn't made for running games,
That should read "It can run games, but it's very, very slow."
>and thus doesn't have to be full speed, best graphics. UAE OTOH is mostly for games, but IMO it
>doesn't deliver.
Huh? Both are general purpose other-machine emulators. UAE is for
anything the Amiga does, just as PCTask does anything a 286 does.
>Yea. That is like PC-Task would only emulate a 286. AFAIK, the version out does a 386.
That's not correct. The new version, if and when it comes out, should
support the 386. It remains to be see at what speed, though.
>I agree that both are useless for games, (action games at least) the problem is that out of
Hmm...on the Pentium Pro 180 I tried it on, I have a high level of
confidence that even for action games it became very, very playable.
>every one I've seen praising UAE, all but one used it for games. OTOH, I've never seen anyone
Well, sure. What else would you, if you have a PC, use an Amiga
emulator for? Certainly not productivity apps!
>boast PCTask being able to play PC games. Both could be useful for programs, but UAE, with it's
>cumbersome disk system (or has HD support been added during the last month?) is rather geared
>towards games.
Pure nonsense. UAE's "cumbersome disk system" works quite well for
me. Hard drive support has been in the product for a long, long time.
David Corn
On 1 Nov 1996 20:43:34 GMT, worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Benjamin
Hutchings) wrote:
>I like the free C compiler you get with Win95... oh sorry, my mistake, there
Why would I want a C compiler? I don't program. Nor do most people.
>aren't any free C compilers for Win95. Better use Unix then. Well anyway
>I mainly use WinNT to telnet to my Unix account where I have my own mailbox,
>web space, etc.
I see. While that's certainly nice, why not just use a PPP GUI-based
mail client, rather than the CLI of the typical Unix mail client?
>Yes. I'm using it right now.
Why? Why not use, say, Agent?
>>Why use this? CuteFTP is free, and works very well. But MSIE3.0 is
>>free, too, and works well too. I guess I have a hard time seeing why
>>I'd use FTP rather than CuteFTP or (99% of the time) MSIE3 for
>>grabbing files. Can you tell me why?
>
>I often use CuteFTP too. I don't like it much though. First of all it seems
>impossible to fetch files without getting directory listings, which takes a
>long time if the route to the ftp server is congested. Secondly it has a lot
>of bugs (at least the version we have here, which is "1.4 Final Beta 7").
You have a version that's ... 3 releases old. Why don't you try
getting the latest version, and see if the bugs have been removed?
>e.g. It won't save an edited site list, and if you mistype your password it
>will retry repeatedly, causing the remote host to disable your account
>temporarily. And CuteFTP is *not* part of the standard software which comes
>with Win95/NT which is what I thought we were talking about.
The quote was something like "I'm very happy with Win95's IP tools."
CuteFTP is a Win95 IP tool.
>ping: can't set the rate at which to ping, can't use quiet output, can't
>set the packet size, can't show verbose output
I see. And this affects me because...?
>traceroute: various esoteric options missing which are probably useful to
>a sysadmin
..and 1) I can't replace this with another tool or 2) this affects me
because...?
>Obviously you have no need for really powerful tools then. Because powerful
Oh, *obviously*! Just because I want something easy to use!
>tools are simply not compatible with the point-and-click mentality. If you
>are serious about networking, or about any application, you will RTFM.
>Online help doesn't cut it when it comes to real understanding.
:)
I'm pretty serious about networking; it's what I do for a living. But
for most people, the things you're talking about have zero importance.
>>Sure, but you yourself said they're essential...
>
>It is essential that the browser supports them. For most of the uses people
>have put them to on web pages, they are not essential. This is a distinction
>you seem to be blind to.
No matter how you label it, we both agree they're essential. That's
all I'm interested in, and I'm not especially interested in your
attacks or your perception of why I find them essential, which I still
haven't given, and which you're just guessing at.
F. Cowart
God calls Bill Clinton, Boris Yellson and Bill Gates to heaven and tells
them that he is going to destroy the world in 3 days and he wants the 3
most important people in the world to tell the world.
Bill clinton go's to his cabinent and tells then he has good news and bad
news, There is a god, but he's going to distroy the World.
Boris yelson go's to his cabinet and tells then he as bad news and terible
news. There is a god, and he's going to distroy the world.
Bill Gates go's to his board of directors and say I have good news and
great news! The good news is that God thinks I am one of the most
important men in the world, and the great news is we will not have to
debug win-95!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Light at the end of the tunnel is an oncomming train.
It's always darkest just before it gos compleately black.
Trust me, I know what's best for you. --- Adolph H... somebody
Of course I can run your life; Being human I never make miistakess.
Someone else, will always hold what you want, to be the most
important thing in there life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------