Amiga Dealers/Commodore
Marc Rifkin CATS
can't believe what I have been hearing. I have owned my 500 for over a
year now, with NO, ZER0 problems. Not a one. Three friends of mine got
theirs within this year and have had some SERIOUS chip seating problems and
not very much success with service.
But blaming Commodore for dealer troubles is like blaming the US post
service because ol Bob at the local post office is not a nice fellow.
I understand that improvements are underway, so don't lose your confidence
in the Amiga.
Just be glad you don't own a computer that cost you twice the price of an
Amiga plus repairs and has 1/2 the memory and .0001 the power. Or take
pride that you don't have to buy a new computer in order to get more
memory and the newest OS. You have the only computer that REALLY
multitasks. Realize that what you may think the Amiga does not do well,
other computers cannot do at all. Remember, when your Amiga DOES work,
it is INCREDIBLE.
So after this pep-talk, what do you do? Have patience and be persistent.
--
==========================================================================
Marc Rifkin -- Summer CATS Assistant
PHONE 215-431-9180 UUCP ...{uunet,allegra,rutgers}!cbmvax!marc
"I don't need to quote anyone."
"Greenland is in Utah."
==========================================================================
Thomas Sarver
>I've been reading alot of flames on CBM about customer support, and still
>can't believe what I have been hearing. I have owned my 500 for over a
>year now, with NO, ZER0 problems. Not a one. Three friends of mine got
>theirs within this year and have had some SERIOUS chip seating problems and
>not very much success with service.
>But blaming Commodore for dealer troubles is like blaming the US post
>service because ol Bob at the local post office is not a nice fellow.
>I understand that improvements are underway, so don't lose your confidence
>in the Amiga.
!Amiga plus repairs and has 1/2 the memory and .0001 t
Yeah! I have a friend with one of the original 520ST's. Boy is he mad every
time he has chip seating problems. He's finally gotten a new motherboard.
The point is, IF YOU OWN AN AMIGA, YOU ARE AN ELITIST !
^^ (sp?)
You made the right decision. You own the most awesome PC "... and God is in
His heaven, and all is right with the world."
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
But hey, its the best country in the world!
Thomas W. Sarver
"The complexity of a system is proportional to the factorial of its atoms. One
can only hope to minimize the complexity of the micro-system in which one
finds oneself."
-TWS
Addendum: "... or migrate to a less complex micro-system."
Richard Sexton
>can't believe what I have been hearing.
This is probably because people who have problems, complain.
People whose machines work just fine are very quiet about it.
If it means anything, I've had to replace one keyboard cable
(my fault, I stretched the hell out of it) and have had
5 disks go bad in almost 3 years.
Signed,
A satisfied customer
--
Many have been bought by rich people, from other countries.
ric...@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
j eric townsend
> Just be glad ...
> You have the only computer that REALLY
> multitasks.
Is this:
a. a jab at OS/2, or
b. a dogmatic statement that doesn't take into account the unix-pc or
'86 based unix systems?
Just curious, not flaming you.
Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should
have gone with OS9 or an OS9 variant (in my opnion). At least
OS9 has fork(). :-) :-)
--
Motorola Skates on Intel's Head!
J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
..!bellcore!tness1!/
Peter da Silva
> Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should
> have gone with OS9 or an OS9 variant (in my opnion). At least
> OS9 has fork(). :-) :-)
OS/9 doesn't have fork(). This is why OS/9 can run on small 68000 based
systems with no MMU, like the Amiga, and UNIX can't.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-' pe...@sugar.uu.net "You made a TIME MACHINE out of a
Have you hugged U your wolf today? VOLKSWAGEN?"
"Well, I couldn't afford a deLorean. It's a bit of a pain trying to get it
up to 88 miles an hour though."
j eric townsend
> In article <12...@flatline.UUCP>, er...@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes:
> > Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should
> > have gone with OS9 or an OS9 variant (in my opnion). At least
> > OS9 has fork(). :-) :-)
>
> OS/9 doesn't have fork(). This is why OS/9 can run on small 68000 based
> systems with no MMU, like the Amiga, and UNIX can't.
I thought that OS9/68K had fork()... My mistake.
Kurt J. Lidl
>In article <43...@cbmvax.UUCP>, ma...@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) writes:
>> Just be glad ...
>> You have the only computer that REALLY
[I'm going to assume he meant "microcomputer"]
>> multitasks.
>Is this:
>a. a jab at OS/2, or
>b. a dogmatic statement that doesn't take into account the unix-pc or
>'86 based unix systems?
or
c. a mondo-jab at "MacMultitasking"
d. a proud reference to a PC OS that had the "vision" to include
multiple tasks, virtual machines and all that other good multi-tasking
lingo from the BEGINNING, instead of the "Gee - that is useful, lets put
it in the next update to the OS!" mentality
I personally vote for option d.
(Obscure movie reference: What was the one in the middle?)
>Just curious, not flaming you.
Me too...
>[stuff about OS9 sent to the bit-bucket for resource reclaimation :-)]
>J. Eric Townsend
Kurt Lidl
--
==================================================================
== Kurt J. Lidl (sm...@eneevax.umd.edu) (301)454-6849 ==
== UUCP: [seismo,allegra]!umcp-cs!eneevax!smaug ==
========"It's after 3am, no point in going to sleep now..."=======
Marc Rifkin CATS
>
>a. a jab at OS/2, or
>b. a dogmatic statement that doesn't take into account the unix-pc or
>'86 based unix systems?
>
>Just curious, not flaming you.
a. To be honest, indirectly yes (but not OS2 specifically)
b. To me, 'unix' and 'pc' don't seem to go together B-)
>Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should
Oh yeah, but RUNNING OS9. Amiga does not have to *RUN* anything in order
to multitask. And since mtasking is its native mode, most (I wish I could
say all) programs support it.
>Motorola Skates on Intel's Head!
>J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
> ..!bellcore!tness1!/
Hal Work
took it back to HT Electronics in Sunnyvale and they replaced it on the spot
during my lunch hour. What a deal!
My sister's 1000's internal drive died after a year and a half. She also
took it to HT and they replaced it on the spot.
Two more satisfied customers!
Robert Eachus
>> Just be glad ...
>> You have the only computer that REALLY
>> multitasks.
>
>Is this:
>
>a. a jab at OS/2, or
>b. a dogmatic statement that doesn't take into account the unix-pc or
>'86 based unix systems?
How about c. A comment that the Amiga is the only REAL-TIME
machine that also does multi-tasking right.
>Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II.
Please don't. There was some talk once upon a time of porting OS9
to the Amiga. I think this fell through for the same reason that
Commodore can't give the Transformer away -- Amiga owners don't want
to give up all the other goodies just to get access to the available
software for some other OS. What I would like to see is for someone
to put together a tool to convert OS9 68K programs to run from the
CLI...
Robert I. Eachus
FAU...@radc-tops20.arpa
>>Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should
>
>Oh yeah, but RUNNING OS9. Amiga does not have to *RUN* anything in order
>to multitask. And since mtasking is its native mode, most (I wish I could
>say all) programs support it.
It seems to me that the the Amiga has to *RUN* its operating system in order
to multitask. It's the Amiga's Operating System which is multitasking, not
the Amiga hardware.
Mark Fausett
arpa: fau...@radc-tops20.arpa
-------
FAU...@radc-tops20.arpa
[stuff deleted here]
> OS/9 doesn't have fork(). This is why OS/9 can run on small 68000 based
> systems with no MMU, like the Amiga, and UNIX can't.
I don't think this is entirely true; I used to have a Callan Unistar 100
on my desk running UN*X. It was MC68000 based, with 512K ram, and no MMU.
It *would* crash once in a while, but not too frequently.
Dave Scroggins
All this talk about premature AMIGA deaths --
Well my 1000 has NEVER had a problem not caused by an
external source. The only problem EVER (aside from some of my
poor programming ;-) ) was when a disk full of PD stuff had a
SLIGHTLY damaged shutter that jammed the disk head. It bent a few
things, but I fixed it myself. (and in a fit sent the offending disk
flying into oblivion)
SO CMB --MY AMIGA has been alive and well from day 1 (2 years now)
and my home "office" is not exactly a healthy environment for
a computer.(heck - it's not even healthy for HUMANS!!! ;-) )
GOOD JOB ________
Dave (wanted to give a little positive feedback!) S.
Sam Paolucci
The Amiga operating system is in ROM. You could argue that that is *RUN*
everytime you turn the machine on, but I think you would be just trying
to be argumentative about something that is a fact!
-+= SAM =+-
"the best things in life are free"
ARPA: paol...@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov
FILLER
FILLER
FILLER
FILLER
Peter da Silva
> I don't think this is entirely true; I used to have a Callan Unistar 100
> on my desk running UN*X. It was MC68000 based, with 512K ram, and no MMU.
> It *would* crash once in a while, but not too frequently.
It's got to have some sort of MMU, even if just base and bounds registers.
I've used a Callan, and while it's no great shakes it sure acted like it
had one. An MMU (to belabour the point) doesn't imply full demand paged
virtual memory.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-' pe...@sugar.uu.net
j eric townsend
> >Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should
>
> Oh yeah, but RUNNING OS9. Amiga does not have to *RUN* anything in order
> to multitask. And since mtasking is its native mode, most (I wish I could
> say all) programs support it.
Oh, so then your Amiga doesn't *RUN* AmigaDos? The OS9 for the CoCo
is just that: a replacement OS. Just like UNIX on a 386 box:
DOS isn't required to "run" unix; neither is TrashDos needed to
"run" OS9.
OS9 on a CoCo *is* native mode. It's no longer a CoCo, but an OS9 box
instead. Unfortunatley, most people don't know what OS9 is in the
first place.... :-)
--
Peter da Silva
shipped with a mass-market computer. This means that most of the software for
the Amiga is well behaved. Fewer and fewer major companies are shipping
programs that don't respect AmigaOS. OS/9 is available from Tandy for the
CoCo, but most of the CoCo software in your neighborhood Radio Shack doesn't
run under it... and there isn't any other mass-market computer running OS/9.
The Tandy 6000 and the Atari ST have OS/9 available, but not from the
manufacturer and it's not 6809 OS/9.
AmigaOS is also the first realtime operating system shipped with a mass-market
computer. It's the first concurrent windowing system shipped with a mass-
market computer. And so on...
OS/9 is probably a much better balanced system, but you can't play Bards Tale
while online to your local UNIX system and compiling the latest *.sources.amiga
program or ray tracing an F-16 buzzing a unicycle... because there's almost
no mass-market software for it.
Marc Rifkin CATS
>
>Oh, so then your Amiga doesn't *RUN* AmigaDos? The OS9 for the CoCo
>is just that: a replacement OS. Just like UNIX on a 386 box:
>DOS isn't required to "run" unix; neither is TrashDos needed to
>"run" OS9.
>
>OS9 on a CoCo *is* native mode. It's no longer a CoCo, but an OS9 box
>instead. Unfortunatley, most people don't know what OS9 is in the
>first place.... :-)
>--
not a replacement. But still, (for the sake of pointless arguement),
the standard, out of the box, unmodified Amiga is multitasking. Additionally,
and most important, its architecture is based on such operation (COprocessors,
separate busses, DMA). Without these features, multitasking on the Amiga
would be slow and impractical.
It's Monday morning, please excuse any pointless babbling. Normally, I
don't like to compare computers. It usually breaks down to childish
bickering ("Mine's better than yours!"). The point is that although I'm
interested in other systems, I don't feel it is of any use to compare
different systems unless you're trying to decide which one to use (I already
have). In other words, it doesn't matter! B-)
>Motorola Skates on Intel's Head!
>J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
> ..!bellcore!tness1!/
--
==========================================================================
Marc Rifkin -- Summer CATS Assistant
PHONE 215-431-9180 UUCP ...{uunet,allegra,rutgers}!cbmvax!marc
"I speak only for myself- I'm not a ventriloquist"
"Greenland is in Utah; in fact, its the capital"
==========================================================================
Peter da Silva
> such operation (COprocessors, separate busses, DMA). Without these
> features, multitasking on the Amiga would be slow and impractical.
Without these features, moving windows around would be quite a bit slower...
however multitasking would be quite reasonable and practical. For any CPU
with more than 64K of address space (and a good many with less) multitasking
is such an obvious win that I'm still flabbergasted that anyone is satisfied
with less. I've written a basic timesliced multitasker (no preemption, no
realtime) in Forth that runs under CP/M on an 8080. About 50 lines of code
total. I've used a Forth development system that supports multiple users
with less than 64K, on a computer with a 4-bit ALU. I've run UNIX on a stock
IBM-PC/XT, and it was quite a bit faster than MS-DOS.
In fact you can buy a computer with a very similar operating system to the
Amiga's with no coprocessors... the Sinclair QL.
I suspect that you're looking at Multifinder and OS/2 and saying "there but
for the grace of Agnes go I". It's not the lack of CPU power that cripples
these systems, it's software... the need to retain compatibility with an
obsolete and inefficient software architecture.
Dave Scroggins
>The Amiga operating system is in ROM. You could argue that that is *RUN*
>everytime you turn the machine on, but I think you would be just trying
>to be argumentative about something that is a fact!
MY AMIGA OS in NOT in ROM!! Remember the 1000!!
So MY OS gets stuck in RAM. Does that mean I RUN my OS but
you don't since yours is in ROM (500/2000)?
I don't think so. When you get right down to it a ROM is
just a section of memory that "does not forget"!!
Dave S.
Tom Limoncelli
Scroggins) writes:
From my point of view (I own a 1000 and a 2000) the 1000's
Kickstart is in ROM and I don't get upset when people refer to the OS
being in ROM, because after my Amiga has been running for about 30
seconds, the kickstart looks, feels, and smells like it is in ROM.
How's that for a run-on sentence? (Of course... I also smile because
I know that my upgrades are cheaper because I don't have to pay for
new ROMs. :-) ...well, for one of my machines)
Tom
--
Tom Limoncelli
Currently using crutches and in great pain, but still available at:
lim...@pilot.njin.net "Remember all the great times we had?"
tlim...@drew.bitnet "Yeah... was that *you*?"
tlimonce%dr...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"The opinions expressed above are mine... just mine."
(Hey Eric! Remember when I was so proud to finally be on a net and your
reply was, "Bitnet? Ok... tell me when you get on a real net"? Well,
look at the new signature! A real net! Right on the internet! See! See!
It's also reachable via lim...@njin.rutgers.edu. Ok Eric? )
Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab
>... ray tracing an F-16 buzzing a unicycle...
Now *there's* an idea!
Naw. Allen did it first with helicopters bombing the Ata... er,
Arati headquarters and flattening Red with his Lotus.
Allen's latest animation, "Rush Hour", is very cool.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ew...@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
\_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac
O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
"Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor