Lets get focused now....why the 3000 beats the Quadra
cha...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
After reading the specs on system 7.0 and the new "awesome" Quadra I began
to get worried. But then I told myself "you know mac can't do anyhing right,"
but I decided to make sure...
So on the way back from the gym took a break at the microcenter, where sat
before me one Mac Quadra. It looked like any other mac. So I decide to check
out the 040, "multitasking", and QuickTime (heard it was this great new thing)..
Clicked on the hd, refreshed like my 030. Ran quicktime anim onscreen...
a b&w anim that went at a nice pace with sound. I dragged a window and watched
the anim STOP (for as long as I held the mouse button). A laughed with my friend.
Ok, it just has a problem with i/o tasking. So I run another b&w anim.
Both are in relatively small windows. The sound on the first stops and sound
on the second comes in. FRAME on 2nd anim FRAME on first FRAME on second
FRAME on first -- it was hilarious. Click on the first anim to rewind...
second one STOPS. We just had to see 3. But, oh no, no memory!!! Well, maybe
Quicktime can't use virtual (these 2 tiny anims had eaten ALL of the 4 megs).
So try ALL the programs -- NONE will run. Where is this great virtual stuff?
I guess I have to turn it on first? Or is it a $100 upgrade? New motherboard?
Ok, so the multitasking sucks. I couldn't run a program and a single
small black and white animation in 4 megs (tryed it later). And you can quote
me all the specs you want -- it was SLOW for an 040. HD was slow, response
was slow....and the speed while multitasking was BELOW BEARABLE. My 3000
beats it right now -- not to mention with an 040 and couple of high res cards
to get the prices to come even close to each other!
TO THE PERSON WHO SAID QUADRA STANDARD GRAPHICS ARE BETTER THAN AMIGA CARDS:
What cards are you talking about? ALL the TIGA cards are better....
the 8 bit ones blow it away at 8 bits the 24 bit cards blow it away at 24 bits.
The toaster blows it away for video. Im very confused. There are only 2
reasons comeone buys Mac instead of Amiga. The software they need and the name
"Commodore Omega" :) Or maybe they are just braindead.
BTW: WOW! Coprocessors? What an inovation! Its not like that was on the
Amiga when the Mac was 512X512 black and white watch size screen.
MAC: 1 button, 1 screen, 1 user, 1 color, 1 task....1 choice.
Ciao....
If amiga went under Id buy IBM.
--
WOW! I can use a toaster with my MAC/IBM. Thats great!
"See, I told you the Toaster was compatable...ha!"
Sorta like buying a "ferrari box" and tying your Yugo to it and saying
"I told you it just needed a little work...ha!"
Dariusz Bolski
>
> Ok, it just has a problem with i/o tasking. So I run another b&w anim.
>Both are in relatively small windows. The sound on the first stops and sound
>on the second comes in. FRAME on 2nd anim FRAME on first FRAME on second
>FRAME on first -- it was hilarious. Click on the first anim to rewind...
>second one STOPS.
In our University Mac shop is Quadra 900. There is a demo on screen.
The planet (radius about 100 pixels) moves around the screen rotating.
And a cat hunts a butterfly. Animation was about 2 frames a second.
When cat happened to get on the same place where the globe was (earth)
you literarlly see the slow redraw of a globe (cat disappeares) then the
redraw of a cat. Even worse. The animated globe does not restore the
background correctly (square brushes - you can see it observing redraws) and
leaves a lot of rubbish behind it. THIS IS THE POOREST DEMO I HAVE EVER SEEN!
The first thing primary school students learn when do animation is:
RESTORE THE BACKGROUND CORRECTLY! They tried to speed up the animation so
used a poor man technique to move globe to avoid moving background to a store
and then bringing it back. It was still annoyingly slow and trashy (I mean
leaving the trash on screen. The sales person tried to fix it but he could
not help it ). The redraw speed was like my ancient ZX81 just in 16mil colors.
>me all the specs you want -- it was SLOW for an 040. HD was slow, response
>was slow....and the speed while multitasking was BELOW BEARABLE. My 3000
>beats it right now -- not to mention with an 040 and couple of high res cards
>to get the prices to come even close to each other!
Surprise but true. (Still quadra is much faster in calculations).
But there is at least one thing where Quadra (or any Mac) beats no matter
what Amiga. This is actually not a problem of Amiga but rather a problem
of not to small chunk of a software for Amiga. Programmers often take for
granted the size of the default font on Amiga.
Since the new version of Workbench the size is user selectable. My wife
selected following settings:
Screen: CGTimes 18
System: Topas 9 (i think - not sure)
Window: CGTimes 15
What happens is that many programs pick default Screen font to place
a printout on the screen but don't ask for its size. Just place it as
they assume the default size would be. Then screen printouts get so much
messed up that unreadable. Menus are messed up too. Programs which do
not take care of it are rendered almost unusable. If you do not believe it,
Please, run SysInfo and pick the Boards or Memory check. And see what happens.
Please don't tell me to keep these ugly old fonts as were default for W1.3.
I want use CGTimes. And I hope programmers will start notice that new
feature which accidentally can turn to a problem with bad programming practice.
Enough Amiga bashing. Sorry folks. This font problem, bugs me long enough
to not to make it clear to the programmers (I know there is quite a few of
us here).
> If amiga went under Id buy IBM.
It depends on too many variables to make such a statement in my case.
Dariusz Bolski
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Dariusz Bolski The Hopkins Microcomputer Laboratory,
Systems Manager The Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design (ACCAD)
Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.A.
(614) 292-4982 e-mail: de...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
am...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
___________________________________________________________________________
Philip McDunnough
[ Discussion of this user's experience with a Mac Quadra...]
In reference to the subject title let me state very simply that at a high
end a user is much better with a NeXT than a Mac. However a Mac Quadra is
far preferable to an A3000. The main reason has to do with software. The
Mac has a very good software base for a general purpose computer, and it
is software that people get computers for. The NeXT, for academics at least
and perhaps developers, comes bundled with a lot of useful software and
provides you with preemptive multitasking, something not available with the
Mac OS.
The Amiga is a very nice computer. It has not and probably will not be accepted
as a general purpose computer in the US. That is not a bad thing actually, but
one consequence of this is that Commodore is better off concentrating on
cost effective units rather than higher end expensive oens. In particular,
it should totally deemphasize Unix as an OS for its products( but provide
connectivity solutions such as X, Ethernet with NFS,etc... under the Amiga's
native OS).
People seem intent on comparing hardware. You're much better off comparing
available software for many of the tasks for which people buy Mac's and not
Amiga's. The Amiga is simply not a very good general purpose computer.
I might add that the upcoming A/UX 3.0 is actually quite nice. It may not be
NeXTstep, but then again Mac's are not higher end workstations nor do they
pretend to be.
Corporate USA seems to have settled on PC's, Mac's and Unix boxes in that
order. I don't see that changing and in fact there is no reason for it to
change. The Amiga will remain an important niche computer and will be all
the more interesting because of that. The future belongs to vendors that can
repeat the C64 success with a more up to date model. Thus, a $500 020 Amiga
complete with HD and monitor is in my opinion more important than an 040
Amiga running Unix. The Unix workstation world is not a market to get into
unless you want to give away computers.
As for QuickTime, I can't see how it couldn't become an important tool in the
search for defining a multimedia system kernel.
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Gerald G. Washington
>In reference to the subject title let me state very simply that at a high
>end a user is much better with a NeXT than a Mac. However a Mac Quadra is
I have to disagree. I definitely would prefer to own an A3000 over a Mac
Quadra. Of course, I would add the extras to the A3000 to bring its price
near that of the Quadra.
>The main reason has to do with software. The
>Mac has a very good software base for a general purpose computer, and it
>is software that people get computers for. The NeXT, for academics at least
>and perhaps developers, comes bundled with a lot of useful software and
>provides you with preemptive multitasking, something not available with the
>Mac OS.
The Amiga has every piece of application software I need. In addition the
Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational software. (I have
yet to see good music programs for the Mac, or good painting programs.)
>People seem intent on comparing hardware. You're much better off comparing
>available software for many of the tasks for which people buy Mac's and not
>Amiga's. The Amiga is simply not a very good general purpose computer.
This is completely false, and I mean completely.
>[...] Thus, a $500 020 Amiga
>complete with HD and monitor is in my opinion more important than an 040
>Amiga running Unix. The Unix workstation world is not a market to get into
>unless you want to give away computers.
It is quite obvious that the Amiga is not the computer for you. However, I
would gladly accept an 040 Amiga running Unix.
>As for QuickTime, I can't see how it couldn't become an important tool in the
>search for defining a multimedia system kernel.
The Amiga has already got that field licked with the Video Toaster.
There was no justification for any of his opinions concerning the Quadra over
the Amiga. As far as the software base is concerned, no application programs
were mentioned that one might find for the Mac but not for the Amiga (meaning
an equivalent Amiga application). If I were to pick another system to buy
besides the Amiga, it would definitely be an IBM-clone.
-- Gerald
Christopher M. Kmiec
>phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>>In reference to the subject title let me state very simply that at a high
>>end a user is much better with a NeXT than a Mac. However a Mac Quadra is
>>far preferable to an A3000. [...]
>I have to disagree. I definitely would prefer to own an A3000 over a Mac
>Quadra. Of course, I would add the extras to the A3000 to bring its price
>near that of the Quadra.
>>The main reason has to do with software. The
>>Mac has a very good software base for a general purpose computer, and it
>>is software that people get computers for. The NeXT, for academics at least
>>and perhaps developers, comes bundled with a lot of useful software and
>>provides you with preemptive multitasking, something not available with the
>>Mac OS.
>The Amiga has every piece of application software I need. In addition the
>Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational software. (I have
>yet to see good music programs for the Mac, or good painting programs.)
Although I would preffer Amiga over Quadra anytime, I think that saying
that Mac doesn't have any good graphics programs is a *little* off.
Are you saying that Adobe Illustrator isn't a good program??
>-- Gerald
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christopher Kmiec | Send E-mail to: |
| Atari, gotta have it! | cmk5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Devlin
>phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>
>>Mac has a very good software base for a general purpose computer, and it
>>is software that people get computers for. The NeXT, for academics at least
>>and perhaps developers, comes bundled with a lot of useful software and
>>provides you with preemptive multitasking, something not available with the
>>Mac OS.
>
>The Amiga has every piece of application software I need. In addition the
>Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational software. (I have
>yet to see good music programs for the Mac, or good painting programs.)
There is another thing he is totally ignoring, for a few $ more, you can add
a 386BB and A-Max TO your A3000 and run all of that Mac software PLUS MS-DOS
software AND still run all the Amiga software, hell while you are add it
toss on Unix and an ST emulator and run everything! ;)
The point is, software is NOT a good reason to buy a Mac over an Amiga, not
when the Amiga can with a board or two run all of that same software.
>
>>People seem intent on comparing hardware. You're much better off comparing
>>available software for many of the tasks for which people buy Mac's and not
>>Amiga's. The Amiga is simply not a very good general purpose computer.
>
>This is completely false, and I mean completely.
Agreed again totally false, what does he think every piece of Amiga, Mac and
MS-DOS software package out there counts as, nothing?
>
>>[...] Thus, a $500 020 Amiga
>>complete with HD and monitor is in my opinion more important than an 040
>>Amiga running Unix. The Unix workstation world is not a market to get into
>>unless you want to give away computers.
>
>It is quite obvious that the Amiga is not the computer for you. However, I
>would gladly accept an 040 Amiga running Unix.
Me too!!
>
>>As for QuickTime, I can't see how it couldn't become an important tool in the
>>search for defining a multimedia system kernel.
>
>The Amiga has already got that field licked with the Video Toaster.
>
>There was no justification for any of his opinions concerning the Quadra over
>the Amiga. As far as the software base is concerned, no application programs
>were mentioned that one might find for the Mac but not for the Amiga (meaning
>an equivalent Amiga application). If I were to pick another system to buy
>besides the Amiga, it would definitely be an IBM-clone.
T
he simple fact is, if you are going to base your choice JUST due to the
software avaible for each platform, them you must include ALL the software
that that platform is able to run, encluding what it can run with it's
emulators. These two emulators that I mentioned are not just cheap 50-80%
or less emulations, they are Hardwar e add-ons that will give you the
ability to run it all.
>
>-- Gerald
Tim
--
Internet/Bitnet: cyt...@irie.ais.org
CompuServe: 76217,1372 (via Internet) 76217...@compuserve.com
GEnie: T.Devlin2 BIX: Cython P-LINK: Opps! it died!
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>I have to disagree. I definitely would prefer to own an A3000 over a Mac
>Quadra. Of course, I would add the extras to the A3000 to bring its price
>near that of the Quadra.
That's fine. If it suits your purpose then by all means get an A3000. It's a
nice computer.
[ ]
>
>The Amiga has every piece of application software I need. In addition the
>Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational software. (I have
>yet to see good music programs for the Mac, or good painting programs.)
I would suggest you look more carefully. The Amiga is not the best choice
for people looking into music. The Mac is far better, as is the Atari. There
are also dozens of paint and drawing programs for the Mac.
>
>>People seem intent on comparing hardware. You're much better off comparing
>>available software for many of the tasks for which people buy Mac's and not
>>Amiga's. The Amiga is simply not a very good general purpose computer.
>
>This is completely false, and I mean completely.
That's your opinion. It is not one shared by your fellow countrymen. Try
reading what I said. You simply cannot get programs like MathWriter Pro,
FrameMaker, Illustrator ,etc...for the Amiga.
>
>>[...] Thus, a $500 020 Amiga
>>complete with HD and monitor is in my opinion more important than an 040
>>Amiga running Unix. The Unix workstation world is not a market to get into
>>unless you want to give away computers.
>
>It is quite obvious that the Amiga is not the computer for you. However, I
>would gladly accept an 040 Amiga running Unix.
I would gladly accept an Amiga running Unix if I didn't have to pay for it. I
believe the market has made up its mind and Unix on the Amiga is simply not
a high priority. On the other hand consumer oriented computers and CDTV
stations would be well received if priced and packaged properly.
>
>>As for QuickTime, I can't see how it couldn't become an important tool in the
>>search for defining a multimedia system kernel.
>
>The Amiga has already got that field licked with the Video Toaster.
I don't think you understood what I said. In any case, the Toaster is not
going to be in any multimedia system kernel for obvious reasons. Multimedia
is a field still looking for standards and a definition. The Amiga has an
important role to play in this evolving arena. QuickTime will also be
there and is a tool at a more conceptual level.
>
>There was no justification for any of his opinions concerning the Quadra over
>the Amiga. As far as the software base is concerned, no application programs
>were mentioned that one might find for the Mac but not for the Amiga (meaning
>an equivalent Amiga application). If I were to pick another system to buy
>besides the Amiga, it would definitely be an IBM-clone.
Where is FrameMaker, MathWriter, Illustrator, PageMaker, ....
I'm not putting the Amiga down. It has its place. However, if you try to
compete with the Mac on the Mac's terms then it's all over. By the way, you
might want to try to find the equivalent of Excel, Finale, Bedford Accounting,
...on the Amiga. Or FileMaker Pro even. Geez I could list hundreds of
programs which are on the Mac and not on the Amiga or the NeXT( which I use).
I don't even enjoy using Mac's, but you can't deny its software base.
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Tim Devlin
>In article <1992Mar1.1...@seas.gwu.edu> ger...@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>
>[ ]
>>
>>
>>
>>>available software for many of the tasks for which people buy Mac's and not
>>>Amiga's. The Amiga is simply not a very good general purpose computer.
>>
>>This is completely false, and I mean completely.
>
>That's your opinion. It is not one shared by your fellow countrymen. Try
>reading what I said. You simply cannot get programs like MathWriter Pro,
>FrameMaker, Illustrator ,etc...for the Amiga.
Gee, must be this copy of MathWriter Pro, FrameMaker and Adobe Illustrator
that im running on my A3000 here is just my eyes playing tricks on me.
Sure, im running them all under A-Max, but SO WHAT? im running them, and
they are running on my A3000. the simple fact is, for another $500 you can
run 99.9% of all Mac software in an Amiga, so HOW can you say that you can't
run this Mac app. or that Mac app on an Amiga? Im sorry, but you are simply
wrong! To base a Mac as a better computer due to software that can be run
on both platforms is silly. If we are going to do it that way, then it's
the Mac that is lacking, as it can only run Mac, Apple II and IBM software,
but no Amiga or ST. Oh sorry, I forgot Mac's can also kinda run Unix. But
then so can an Amiga. I dont go around telling people that a IBM is better
then a Mac becuase the Mac can't run MS-DOS software, when in fact under
SoftPC and some hardware emulators, it can run it just fine. It is also
just a silly to say that an Amiga is somehow < then a Mac because IT cant
run Mac software when it can.
>>
>I would gladly accept an Amiga running Unix if I didn't have to pay for it. I
>believe the market has made up its mind and Unix on the Amiga is simply not
>a high priority. On the other hand consumer oriented computers and CDTV
>stations would be well received if priced and packaged properly.
Most of this is correct, however I belive now that Unix is avaible for stand
alone A3000's and 2500 and no longer just for the UX, you will see alot more
amiga's running Unix out there.
>
>I don't think you understood what I said. In any case, the Toaster is not
>going to be in any multimedia system kernel for obvious reasons. Multimedia
>is a field still looking for standards and a definition. The Amiga has an
>important role to play in this evolving arena. QuickTime will also be
>there and is a tool at a more conceptual level.
Sorry, but I have to dis-agree the Toaster has become THE standard by which
all other multi-media platforms are now judged. The Mac is simply
out-classed here.
>>
>
>Where is FrameMaker, MathWriter, Illustrator, PageMaker, ....
>
>I'm not putting the Amiga down. It has its place. However, if you try to
>compete with the Mac on the Mac's terms then it's all over. By the way, you
>might want to try to find the equivalent of Excel, Finale, Bedford Accounting,
>...on the Amiga. Or FileMaker Pro even. Geez I could list hundreds of
>programs which are on the Mac and not on the Amiga or the NeXT( which I use).
>I don't even enjoy using Mac's, but you can't deny its software base.
What is it with this guy, you would think that it was impossible to run Mac
software or MS-DOS on an Amiga. Look man, as I said before trying to claim
that you need a Mac to run this stuff is just not true anymore, it was
before the really good Mac emulators came out, but it just is not true these
days, the Amiga emulators have become a VERY viable answer to a lack of some
business apps for the Amiga. I am willing to bet you that I can run more
software total on my A3000 then you can on ANY Mac. Thus I have not limited
my choice to only the software avaible for one platform, the Amiga is in my
opinion the first TRUE multi-os computer that will run nearly any software
package avaible today. If I need to run something that is only avaible for
the Mac, I toss in on A-Max and run it, the same goes for MS-DOS software,
and I plan on adding Unix in the near future. Why buy a mac and limit
yourself to its software only? At least add a PC emulator to it, and enjoy
MS-DOS software as well. It's just too bad there is not Amiga emulator for
a Mac or PC-Cloan ;)
>
>Philip McDunnough
>phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Barry McConnell
>>The Amiga has every piece of application software I need. In addition the
>>Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational software. (I have
>>yet to see good music programs for the Mac, or good painting programs.)
>Although I would preffer Amiga over Quadra anytime, I think that saying
>that Mac doesn't have any good graphics programs is a *little* off.
>Are you saying that Adobe Illustrator isn't a good program??
Is there a sound package better than AudioMaster 3 available for the Amiga? I
bought it, and it *sucks* compared to the equivalent on the Mac. :-( Besides
the simple things like the _awful_ file requestor, and the jerking screen
at the start, it can't do neat things like open several samples at once, and
them mix them, with you dragging images of each around in another window to
say where each gets mixed with the other, and then testing it out before you
actually do it...
Barry.
Richard A. Gerber
than a new A3000 :-(. The reason is simple: the Amiga still has no
productivity software and is apparently not going to get any.
In <1992Mar1.1...@seas.gwu.edu> ger...@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>>The main reason has to do with software. The
>>Mac has a very good software base for a general purpose computer, and it
>>is software that people get computers for.
We need Word, WordPerfect 5.x, Lotus, Igor, Draw/Paint programs with
postscript output, physics, math, chemistry and biochemistry applications,
scientific journal databases, data plotting programs with font support (a la
CricketGraph) etc. None of these exist for the Amiga (with the exception of
MapleV).
>The Amiga has every piece of application software I need.
Well, see above.
>>People seem intent on comparing hardware. You're much better off comparing
>>available software for many of the tasks for which people buy Mac's and not
>>Amiga's. The Amiga is simply not a very good general purpose computer.
And it's getting worse as the Amiga market seems to be getting even
more specialized, if that's possible.
>There was no justification for any of his opinions concerning the Quadra over
>the Amiga. As far as the software base is concerned, no application programs
>were mentioned that one might find for the Mac but not for the Amiga (meaning
>an equivalent Amiga application).
See above.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gerber
Grad Student Physics
ger...@rigel.astro.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Sullivan
> phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
> >In reference to the subject title let me state very simply that at a high
> >end a user is much better with a NeXT than a Mac. However a Mac Quadra is
> >far preferable to an A3000. [...]
Preferable by you.. Certainly not to most people around here.
I own Macs because of the software and because the machine requires a minimum
of effort to run and maintain.
> I have to disagree. I definitely would prefer to own an A3000 over a Mac
> Quadra. Of course, I would add the extras to the A3000 to bring its price
> near that of the Quadra.
A fine, honest point.. The Quadras are expensive, but still have a good price.
Expect it to get much lower before mid-year.
> >The main reason has to do with software. The
> >Mac has a very good software base for a general purpose computer, and it
> >is software that people get computers for. The NeXT, for academics at least
> >and perhaps developers, comes bundled with a lot of useful software and
> >provides you with preemptive multitasking, something not available with the
> >Mac OS.
Not now, anyway.. A NeXT fanatic was trying to tell me that NeXT has an
enormous installed business base.. With an overwhelming selection of two
spreadsheets (Improv and Wingz), and one whole illustration application
(Illustrator, buggy and badly in need of a major upgrade).. That and a full
(expensive and complicated) page-layout program like Frame..
The NeXTloonie's point was that NeXT had more business programs then Sun.. I
wonder how many pills he took that morning..
> The Amiga has every piece of application software I need. In addition the
> Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational software. (I have
> yet to see good music programs for the Mac, or good painting programs.)
That's very surprising.. The Mac has the best illustration, page-layout and
painting programs around.. The feature set of the newest programs is huge. Not
always intended for the casual user, however.. It's impossible to keep up with
all the new Mac paint programs.. They bring them out too quickly.
And the best Music Program for systems in the personal arena, Finale by Coda
Systems cannot be beat in capability (and complexity).
> >People seem intent on comparing hardware. You're much better off comparing
> >available software for many of the tasks for which people buy Mac's and not
> >Amiga's. The Amiga is simply not a very good general purpose computer.
>
> This is completely false, and I mean completely.
Well, it does seem to be dominated by technical, not practical folk.
> >[...] Thus, a $500 020 Amiga
> >complete with HD and monitor is in my opinion more important than an 040
> >Amiga running Unix. The Unix workstation world is not a market to get into
> >unless you want to give away computers.
Tell it to Sun.. With several billion dollars a year in UNIX workstation sales.
> It is quite obvious that the Amiga is not the computer for you. However, I
> would gladly accept an 040 Amiga running Unix.
Clearly he would not make much use of one..
> >As for QuickTime, I can't see how it couldn't become an important tool in
the
> >search for defining a multimedia system kernel.
>
> The Amiga has already got that field licked with the Video Toaster.
The Toaster is only for video, and mainly for output. QuickTime makes a very
fine multimedia "kernel." Adobe Premier and the latest hardware from RasterOps
make a lethal multimedia combination (all QuickTime-based).
But look at it this way.. The Amiga has *NO* such support for multimedia.. It
has good sound and graphics hardware (well, OKAY hardware :), but no software
like QuickTime to make it all sing.
> There was no justification for any of his opinions concerning the Quadra over
> the Amiga. As far as the software base is concerned, no application programs
> were mentioned that one might find for the Mac but not for the Amiga (meaning
> an equivalent Amiga application). If I were to pick another system to buy
> besides the Amiga, it would definitely be an IBM-clone.
>
> -- Gerald
I'd take an SGI Indigo.. QuickTime is a good reason, but aside from that..
--
*******************************************************************************
* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh> *
* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions. *
*******************************************************************************
Steven D. Borrelli
>
>Not now, anyway.. A NeXT fanatic was trying to tell me that NeXT has an
>enormous installed business base.. With an overwhelming selection of two
>spreadsheets (Improv and Wingz), and one whole illustration application
>(Illustrator, buggy and badly in need of a major upgrade).. That and a full
>(expensive and complicated) page-layout program like Frame..
>The NeXTloonie's point was that NeXT had more business programs then Sun.. I
>wonder how many pills he took that morning..
I don't even think this need to be responded to. For an installed base
of ~60k the NeXT has a very nice range of applications. Compared to the
Mac, it has a lot of holes. Perhaps you should look at the current and future
software situation for the platform. It's better than you think.
The NeXT "loonie" may have been factually incorrect, but he brings up a good
point: if you were buying workstations for the suits in your office, would
you want them to be using X or NeXTstep? (I know, an unfair question when
there are so many other alternatives...)
--
Steven D. Borrelli
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute '92 elvis ---> lives
bor...@rpi.edu (NeXTmail) think about it.
Daniel Barrett
>I definitely would prefer to own an A3000 over a Mac Quadra.
Me too. But...
>In addition the Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational
>software. (I have yet to see good music programs for the Mac...)
Sorry, Gerald, but I'll have to disagree with your last statement.
Mac music software is *so* far superior to Amiga music software that it isn't
even funny. The Amiga has nothing comparable to Performer, Vision,
SoundTools, Max, etc. etc. etc. Hell, the Mac can even do direct-to-disk
recording simultaneously with MIDI sequencing.
Maybe you are referring to low-end music software, or software that
uses the Amiga internal sound chip. But for "serious" and high-end music
software, the Mac blows the Amiga out of the water.
There's nothing special about the Mac that makes it any better for
music than the Amiga. However, software companies have supported the Mac
very strongly and written some great programs for it. There are some really
good Amiga music programs, and you can do a lot with them, but they aren't
in the same league as the Mac packages.
Dan
//////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 -- bar...@cs.umass.edu |
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
Michael V. Hoffman
products are so much better why do they even bother? Mac does this, and that
and the other better. Same with IBM. That's just not true. The Amiga has
better in my opinion music programs, and hands down when it comes to Paint
and Multimedia. So why do IBM and Mac Users insist that theirs is better.
This is a classic example of penis envy mine is better than yours. Well
why don't you guys just keep your comments to yourselves and argue who has
the better spreedsheet or wordprocessor. Thats what Macs and IBM's do best.
Mike
Gregory G Greene
> There is another thing he is totally ignoring, for a few $ more, you can add
> a 386BB and A-Max TO your A3000 and run all of that Mac software PLUS MS-DOS
> software AND still run all the Amiga software, hell while you are add it
> toss on Unix and an ST emulator and run everything! ;)
>
Has CBM released the 386 BB, or is this a modified 286 BB.
G.Greene
Tim Devlin
>
> Has CBM released this yet, or is this just a modified 286 BB?
> G.Greene
>
CBM has released the 386-BB in both Europe and Canada, and U.S. dealers now
have the order specs for them, from what I have heard, you will be able to
order one here in the U.S. in the next month or two at the latest.
Gerald G. Washington
>>Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational software. (I have
>
>that Mac doesn't have any good graphics programs is a *little* off.
>Are you saying that Adobe Illustrator isn't a good program??
I'm not too familiar with Adobe Illustrator; is this a color painting
program? How does it compare to Deluxe Paint IV for the Amiga?
-- Gerald
Gerald G. Washington
>>Quadra. Of course, I would add the extras to the A3000 to bring its price
>>near that of the Quadra.
>
>nice computer.
Even more, the A3000 is awesome with the proper add-ons. The general
impression I get from people who have used the Quadra is, "Hey, isn't
an 040 machine supposed to be faster than that?" On the other hand,
I showed a friend some music programs (multitasking with animations)
and games on my A500. I just told him that the computer is only 7.14 MHz;
he still cannot believe it.
>>The Amiga has every piece of application software I need. In addition the
>>Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational software. (I have
>>yet to see good music programs for the Mac, or good painting programs.)
>
>I would suggest you look more carefully. The Amiga is not the best choice
>for people looking into music. The Mac is far better, as is the Atari. There
>are also dozens of paint and drawing programs for the Mac.
I don't know if the Amiga is the best choice for a music machine, but it is
an excellent choice for music and graphics and programming...
The Amiga, of course, has dozens of paint programs, too.
>>>People seem intent on comparing hardware. You're much better off comparing
>>>available software for many of the tasks for which people buy Mac's and not
>>>Amiga's. The Amiga is simply not a very good general purpose computer.
>>
>>This is completely false, and I mean completely.
>
>That's your opinion. It is not one shared by your fellow countrymen. Try
>reading what I said. You simply cannot get programs like MathWriter Pro,
>FrameMaker, Illustrator ,etc...for the Amiga.
What is this reference to my fellow countrymen for? I would not be buying
computers for them. The majority of my fellow countrymen probably do not
even know how to use a computer.
What do the applications you mention do? Are you sure there are no
equivalent Amiga programs (Maple, PageStream, Art Department Pro, etc.)?
>>It is quite obvious that the Amiga is not the computer for you. However, I
>>would gladly accept an 040 Amiga running Unix.
>
>I would gladly accept an Amiga running Unix if I didn't have to pay for it.
Given that I could afford either the Amiga or the Quadra, there is still
no choice to make. The Amiga is simply the better system.
>>>As for QuickTime, I can't see how it couldn't become an important tool in the
>>>search for defining a multimedia system kernel.
>>
>>The Amiga has already got that field licked with the Video Toaster.
>
>I don't think you understood what I said.
Perhaps not. If you are looking for a standard for multimedia, for ONE
standard, I don't think that is going to happen.
>>There was no justification for any of his opinions concerning the Quadra over
>>the Amiga. As far as the software base is concerned, no application programs
>>were mentioned that one might find for the Mac but not for the Amiga (meaning
>>an equivalent Amiga application). If I were to pick another system to buy
>>besides the Amiga, it would definitely be an IBM-clone.
>
>Where is FrameMaker, MathWriter, Illustrator, PageMaker, ....
Again, what do these do, and are you sure the Amiga has no equivalent?
>I'm not putting the Amiga down. It has its place. However, if you try to
>compete with the Mac on the Mac's terms then it's all over. By the way, you
>might want to try to find the equivalent of Excel, Finale, Bedford Accounting,
>...on the Amiga. Or FileMaker Pro even. Geez I could list hundreds of
>programs which are on the Mac and not on the Amiga or the NeXT( which I use).
>I don't even enjoy using Mac's, but you can't deny its software base.
I could probably list thousands of programs for the IBM-clone market which
are not found for the Amiga or the Mac or the NeXT. The Amiga, however, has
the packages I need and want. A large software base is not enough for me
to purchase a computer; I do not need to buy five different spreadsheets and
four wordprocessors. I do not even use spreadsheets. The Amiga may not have
the particular software you need, but you are one person.
-- Gerald
Gerald G. Washington
>ger...@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>I definitely would prefer to own an A3000 over a Mac Quadra.
>
>
>>In addition the Amiga has the advantage when it comes to recreational
>
> Sorry, Gerald, but I'll have to disagree with your last statement.
Don't apologize. I haven't seen the music programs, but I guess some do
exist. Obviously they do, as you point out...
>Mac music software is *so* far superior to Amiga music software that it isn't
>even funny. The Amiga has nothing comparable to Performer, Vision,
>SoundTools, Max, etc. etc. etc. Hell, the Mac can even do direct-to-disk
>recording simultaneously with MIDI sequencing.
I've never experimented with professional quality music packages on any
system. Sorry, music is not my major... =)
> Maybe you are referring to low-end music software, or software that
>uses the Amiga internal sound chip. But for "serious" and high-end music
>software, the Mac blows the Amiga out of the water.
Yes, I was referring to the common music packages--those which the "general
purpose" computer user might own. Protracker for the Amiga comes to mind.
> There's nothing special about the Mac that makes it any better for
>music than the Amiga. However, software companies have supported the Mac
>very strongly and written some great programs for it. There are some really
>good Amiga music programs, and you can do a lot with them, but they aren't
>in the same league as the Mac packages.
Interesting. I had no idea the Mac specialized in the music field to such
an extent. By the way, do these packages run under A-MaxII?
-- Gerald
Christopher M. Kmiec
Well, I have never used DP IV, but I've used the Illustrator on the Next,
which is almost the same as on the Mac, and it is the best graphics program
I have ever seen. It is color, and it has just tons of functions. I also
read an article in NextWorld about it, and they said that it is the best
graphics program on any platform.
Phil McDunnough
[ ]
>
>There is another thing he is totally ignoring, for a few $ more, you can add
>a 386BB and A-Max TO your A3000 and run all of that Mac software PLUS MS-DOS
>software AND still run all the Amiga software, hell while you are add it
>toss on Unix and an ST emulator and run everything! ;)
I am ignoring emulators for the most part. It seems silly to claim the Amiga
is better than a Mac because you can turn it into a fast low end Mac and run
most Mac programs. Same goes with the 386BB, although I know of no such
beast. Emulators are useful for the occasional program that you can't get on
your computer or as an interim solution while developers produce needed sw on
a new platform.
I don't wish to get into an analysis of emulators, but AMAX() is simply not
good enough for someone who wants certain progras on modern Mac's. It's
nothing more than a fast Mac+.
[ ]
David Tiberio
I agree with philip. It seems silly that a ZEOS or Compaq can run
IBM software, or that a Mac II can run Mac Plus software! It is pure
propoganda...just garbage.
And there are 2 386 BB, plus one more in development...
--
David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3662 AMIGA DDD-MEN
"Why do we have to go and take the same each day. Life is it what it is."
People don't change. You just get to know them better. -DT
Liverpool, New York...soon to be in 3D...starting with Heid's
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>What is this reference to my fellow countrymen for? I would not be buying
>computers for them. The majority of my fellow countrymen probably do not
>even know how to use a computer.
Before this gets out of hand let me state that my reference to your
fellow countrymen was simply meant in the sense that the US has not, and
is unlikely to, adopt the Amiga as a general purpose computer. The situation
is apparently different elsewhere.
Many people don't know how to use a computer and at this stage they probably
don't need to. I'm an example of a borderline case of someone who does not
need to use one. I like them( including the Amiga).
>
>What do the applications you mention do? Are you sure there are no
>equivalent Amiga programs (Maple, PageStream, Art Department Pro, etc.)?
Maple's an excellent program as is AmigaTeX. I have mentioned this many times.
There are no Amiga equivalents to MathWriter Pro( a WYSIWYG math wp) and
most of the others I mentioned.
[ ]
>
>I could probably list thousands of programs for the IBM-clone market which
>are not found for the Amiga or the Mac or the NeXT. The Amiga, however, has
>the packages I need and want. A large software base is not enough for me
>to purchase a computer; I do not need to buy five different spreadsheets and
>four wordprocessors. I do not even use spreadsheets. The Amiga may not have
>the particular software you need, but you are one person.
Actually I agree with most of what you say here. You don't need 5 of
everything. You do, however, need at least one good product in a number of
important categories.
Gavriel State
>>cmk5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher M. Kmiec) writes:
>
>>I'm not too familiar with Adobe Illustrator; is this a color painting
>>program? How does it compare to Deluxe Paint IV for the Amiga?
>
>Well, I have never used DP IV, but I've used the Illustrator on the Next,
>which is almost the same as on the Mac, and it is the best graphics program
>I have ever seen. It is color, and it has just tons of functions. I also
>read an article in NextWorld about it, and they said that it is the best
>graphics program on any platform.
Illustrator on whatever palatform (Mac, PC, or NeXT) is hardly the best
graphics program out there. It's ok featurewise, but the UI *SUCKS* in
comparison to CorelDRAW! In fact, the UI for every other professional
vector-oriented illustration package pales in comparison to CorelDRAW.
And just wait for 3.0.....8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
OH: BTW, I hate Mickeysoft windows just as much as everyone else here.....
(hint hint hint) 8-) 8-) 8-)
--
Gavriel State | 2A Systems Design Engineering/Economics | University of Waterloo
grs...@crocus.uwaterloo.ca (School) | "What in God's name is going on?"
grs...@vader.ocunix.on.ca (Home) | "FOUL! No rhetoric! Two-one!"
(519)746-2215 (Waterloo) | Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Chung Lau
>
>I'm not too familiar with Adobe Illustrator; is this a color painting
>program? How does it compare to Deluxe Paint IV for the Amiga?
It's a structure-drawing program. Like Professional Draw.
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii
Internet: la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu UseNet: uunet!easy!slau!slau
1992 - The beginning of the end for MS-DOS
Chung Lau
>CBM has released the 386-BB in both Europe and Canada, and U.S. dealers now
>have the order specs for them, from what I have heard, you will be able to
>order one here in the U.S. in the next month or two at the latest.
Is it me or are Amiga users in U.S. being discriminated? (386BB and
A500+)
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
> I agree with philip. It seems silly that a ZEOS or Compaq can run
>IBM software, or that a Mac II can run Mac Plus software! It is pure
>propoganda...just garbage.
Well you have a point! Nevertheless the Amiga can't run most of the modern
Mac software. Does AMAX-II support colour? Do you still have to get the
Mac+ ROM's( after all put a Mac+ motherboard in the Amiga tower and claim
you have the best of both worlds!).
>
> And there are 2 386 BB, plus one more in development...
The BB's are different. They do seem more stable. However I do not know of
a 386 Amiga BB. I know of a Commodore 386sx 20MHz BB at a reasonable
price which only supports CGA. What's the other one?
James Diffendaffer
> In article <1992Mar3.0...@seas.gwu.edu> ger...@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>
>>I'm not too familiar with Adobe Illustrator; is this a color painting
>>program? How does it compare to Deluxe Paint IV for the Amiga?
>
> It's a structure-drawing program. Like Professional Draw.
Your kidding right? ;-)
> Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii
--
******************************************************************************
* James Diffendaffer * "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent *
* sl...@cc.usu.edu * life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none *
* This space for rent. * of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin *
******************************************************************************
Marc N Barrett
What is this other 386 BridgeBoard? The only one I know of is the 386SX BB
that has been bashed in .emulations repeatedly for being too little much too
late, and for its lack of VGA support. Also, where did you get the information
about the 'one more in development'? So far, it has taken Commodore about 6
months to a year to finally get a product to the dealer (and mail-order)
shelves once that product has been announced. If it is still in development,
we probably won't see it for another three years.
Gerald G. Washington
>ger...@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>
>>I'm not too familiar with Adobe Illustrator; is this a color painting
>>program? How does it compare to Deluxe Paint IV for the Amiga?
>
> It's a structure-drawing program. Like Professional Draw.
I see. So what are the good painting programs for the Mac?
-- Gerald
Dariusz Bolski
In article <1992Mar3.1...@utstat.uucp> phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>In article <1992Mar3.1...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtib...@csws14.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>
>[ ]
>>
>> I agree with philip. It seems silly that a ZEOS or Compaq can run
>>IBM software, or that a Mac II can run Mac Plus software! It is pure
>>propoganda...just garbage.
>
>Well you have a point! Nevertheless the Amiga can't run most of the modern
>Mac software. Does AMAX-II support colour?
Do most of Macs display color? If not so why people who buy them claim that
they have a valid Mac platform?
If Mac displaying B/W is a valid Mac platform, so is AMAX Mac emulation a
valid Mac platform.
>Do you still have to get the
>Mac+ ROM's( after all put a Mac+ motherboard in the Amiga tower and claim
>you have the best of both worlds!).
Sorry Philip. Here you are unfair. You know very well that you really do not
need these ROMs for other than legal reasons yet you try to imply that you
really need a Mac hardware to run a Mac software. I'm disappointed with
your reasoning as I would never imagine you could go for cheap arguments
instead of admitting that your partner in discussion is right.
I thought better of you,
>Philip
Regards,
Dariusz Bolski
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Dariusz Bolski The Hopkins Microcomputer Laboratory,
Systems Manager The Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design (ACCAD)
Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.A.
(614) 292-4982 e-mail: de...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
am...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
___________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Norman Johnson
|>
|> In article <1992Mar3.1...@utstat.uucp> phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
|> >In article <1992Mar3.1...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtib...@csws14.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
|> >
|> >[ ]
|> >>
|> >> I agree with philip. It seems silly that a ZEOS or Compaq can run
|> >>IBM software, or that a Mac II can run Mac Plus software! It is pure
|> >>propoganda...just garbage.
|> >
|> >Well you have a point! Nevertheless the Amiga can't run most of the modern
|> >Mac software. Does AMAX-II support colour?
|>
|> Do most of Macs display color? If not so why people who buy them claim that
|> they have a valid Mac platform?
|> If Mac displaying B/W is a valid Mac platform, so is AMAX Mac emulation a
|> valid Mac platform.
|>
Valid, certainly. But cheezy! (but that's just the Mac II owners perspective.
If 512x342 B&W makes you happy, GO FOR IT!) Of course, them Amigas
must be really cheap (monitarily, not in terms of quality) if it costs
less than a Classic to get one and an emulator... But hey anythings
possible.
More to the point is that B&W is still usefull- I agree. But the Plus
ROMs have other problems... which I discuss below.
|> >Do you still have to get the
|> >Mac+ ROM's( after all put a Mac+ motherboard in the Amiga tower and claim
|> >you have the best of both worlds!).
|>
|> Sorry Philip. Here you are unfair. You know very well that you really do not
|> need these ROMs for other than legal reasons yet you try to imply that you
|> really need a Mac hardware to run a Mac software. I'm disappointed with
|> your reasoning as I would never imagine you could go for cheap arguments
|> instead of admitting that your partner in discussion is right.
|> I thought better of you,
|>
|> >Philip
|>
|> Regards,
|>
|> Dariusz Bolski
|>
You do need the contence of those ROMs. You can't do it in software
because Apple will sue you (Apple has this lawsuit thing...). If it wasn't
for this, the ROMs coudl be in software. But that code has got to be
somewhere!
But consider this. Yer Mac Plus ROMs are really weak. Its not just
color- you don't get color thats true. I don't know if you get multi-monitor
support or screens bigger than 512x342. But you cannot use more than 4 MB of
RAM. You cannot use Virtual Memory (and it doesn't matter if you have an
030, the ROMs are incompatible anyway) You do not get expansion slots.
"What?" I hear you cry... "but how could having ROMs that know about expansion
slots be useful for an emulator?" I hear you yodel (well maybe I am just
hallucinating).. well I'll tell ya. If you have expansion slot support in the
ROMs, A-MAX could pretend like whatever perpherals you had were in those
pseudo-slots... fake the system out so that the MacOS could use your
peripherals, in some cases. (*which* cases is harder.. modem, I'm sure, could
be handled that way wo/ tying up a serial port. Ethernet also, I'd wager)
Lesse what else? Ah yes, the Plus math libraries (SANE in particular) do not
use a Floating Point Coprocessor. You may well have one (if Amigas have
FPUs that is, or if you got one somehow), but the Plus ROMS don't believe
in coprocessing.
And don't expect to run apps that need an 020 or an FPU- your Amiga may well
have these things, but the plus ROMs are so early they do not provide
any inherint way to tell, other than to ask "what ROM version is this"?
Well, if some app does that they'll think that you dont have a 020 or an FPU.
Of course, the Macintosh System Software will retrofit the routines that were
added later to the ROMs. Some of these can ask directly what processor are
you using, or if you have an FPU. But these routines will believe they
are on a Mac Plus (it must be true, the ROMs said so...) They will therefore
tell any app which asks that you have a 68000 with no FPU.
So putting mac Plus ROMs into an Amiga is a good way to not use the
Amigas abilities. Why bother? I presume you knew before you got the Amiga
that it COULD run the software you needed. Go ahead, use it. We'll forgive
you for using Amiga software on an Amiga :) [now dont go flaming me because
some people have being saying Amiga software stinks... I am not in a
position to know this, so I'll give the Amiga the benefit of the doubt,
and assume it can do the job]
--
- Dan Johnson
Dariusz Bolski
>In article <1992Mar4.0...@osc.edu>, de...@fac2.tmc.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>|>
>|> In article <1992Mar3.1...@utstat.uucp> phi...@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Mar3.1...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtib...@csws14.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>|> >
>|> >[ ]
>|> >>
>|> >> I agree with philip. It seems silly that a ZEOS or Compaq can run
>|> >>IBM software, or that a Mac II can run Mac Plus software! It is pure
>|> >>propoganda...just garbage.
>|> >
>|> >Well you have a point! Nevertheless the Amiga can't run most of the modern
>|> >Mac software. Does AMAX-II support colour?
>|>
>|> Do most of Macs display color? If not so why people who buy them claim that
>|> they have a valid Mac platform?
>|> If Mac displaying B/W is a valid Mac platform, so is AMAX Mac emulation a
>|> valid Mac platform.
>|>
>
>Valid, certainly. But cheezy! (but that's just the Mac II owners perspective.
>If 512x342 B&W makes you happy, GO FOR IT!) Of course, them Amigas
>must be really cheap (monitarily, not in terms of quality) if it costs
>less than a Classic to get one and an emulator... But hey anythings
>possible.
You confirmed what I said. In fact most Amiga users do not use any Mac for
the reason you attached to a Classic.
>
>More to the point is that B&W is still usefull- I agree. But the Plus
>ROMs have other problems... which I discuss below.
>
>|> >Do you still have to get the
>|> >Mac+ ROM's( after all put a Mac+ motherboard in the Amiga tower and claim
>|> >you have the best of both worlds!).
>|>
>|> Sorry Philip. Here you are unfair. You know very well that you really do not
>|> need these ROMs for other than legal reasons yet you try to imply that you
>|> really need a Mac hardware to run a Mac software. I'm disappointed with
>|> your reasoning as I would never imagine you could go for cheap arguments
>|> instead of admitting that your partner in discussion is right.
>|> I thought better of you,
>|>
>|> >Philip
>|>
>|> Regards,
>|>
>|> Dariusz Bolski
>|>
>
>You do need the contence of those ROMs. You can't do it in software
>because Apple will sue you (Apple has this lawsuit thing...).
Again you repeat after me. I said that this is there for legal reasons.
>But consider this. Yer Mac Plus ROMs are really weak.
Yet people (and among them we) still find use for them (Mac Plus )
for wordprocessing.
> But you cannot use more than 4 MB of
>RAM.
Repeating after Mac World (April 1992) pg21: If Mac owners need color,
the bottom line for memory is that they never have enough. Period. Just lots
of dialog boxes asking if an application should be opened despite the
shortage of memory. [End of quote].
Drawing on it I could guess that there is no difference between 4MB limit
and 8MB limit for color (yet you complained that AMAX users don't get color).
Our old Macs work well enough with less memory. We just don't try to put
System 7 on it. (Again after MacWorld, the same paragraph: Apple is still
grappling with how to present users with a 2 MB system, but the reality
is that users need about 5MB to have a usable system running 7. [ End of
quote])
>You cannot use Virtual Memory
I wouldn't use Apples implementation of VM anyway. Why it is so that VM
of size more than double that of RAM is unadvisable (slows down significantly)?
Why doesn't it allow to open program which requires more RAM than is
installed? And this VM conflicts with the built in VM to programs such
as Adobe Photoshop or ColorStudio - which happened to be our preferred.
On the Sparc I type these words, our swap space is 16 times the size of RAM.
(in fact if there is too much going on and it starts trashing the machine
is useless too. You type and you see what you type after a few seconds)
>(and it doesn't matter if you have an
>030, the ROMs are incompatible anyway) You do not get expansion slots.
Can you quote what percent of all sold Macs do not have expansion slots?
Then calculate how many people it means. Then check if this number is
smaller than this of sold AMAXes.
>
>"What?" I hear you cry... "but how could having ROMs that know about expansion
>slots be useful for an emulator?" I hear you yodel (well maybe I am just
>hallucinating)..
I guess you do. Although your points are valid technically (that something
is or is not used or possible) but they don't make sense for these people
who use machines never expanding them, and for those who use machines
not equipped with a math coprocessor. And there is enough many of them that
such configurations are being made available as a valid platforms.
[ all technically interesting information deleted ]
>
>So putting mac Plus ROMs into an Amiga is a good way to not use the
>Amigas abilities.
I guess one shall not expect that something wonderful would happen and
suddenly Mac had all the capabilities of Amiga. Just by running its software
on it. It would be too good :-)
> Go ahead, use it.
Thank you. Can I use other machines too ? 8^)
>We'll forgive
>you for using Amiga software on an Amiga :) [now dont go flaming me because
>some people have being saying Amiga software stinks...
8-))))
>I am not in a
>position to know this, so I'll give the Amiga the benefit of the doubt,
>and assume it can do the job]
Sure it does. As well as other boxes. Just easier.
> - Dan Johnson
Philip McDunnough
>
[ ]
>>
>>Well you have a point! Nevertheless the Amiga can't run most of the modern
>>Mac software. Does AMAX-II support colour?
>
>Do most of Macs display color? If not so why people who buy them claim that
>they have a valid Mac platform?
>If Mac displaying B/W is a valid Mac platform, so is AMAX Mac emulation a
>valid Mac platform.
Most Mac's do not display colour although all the newer Mac's have colour
QuickDraw in the ROM's, so they are capable of displaying it( even via the
SCSI port in some cases!). More importantly they support remote Appletalk,
1.44 meg floppies,etc...AMAX-II will not give you a plug and play solution
to being a Mac. In any case I've never been a strong believer in
emulators as I originally noted. The Amiga is good enough to stand on its
own merits and not have to rely on the fact that it can emulate 25 different
computer types.
>
>>Do you still have to get the
>>Mac+ ROM's( after all put a Mac+ motherboard in the Amiga tower and claim
>>you have the best of both worlds!).
>
>Sorry Philip. Here you are unfair. You know very well that you really do not
>need these ROMs for other than legal reasons yet you try to imply that you
>really need a Mac hardware to run a Mac software. I'm disappointed with
>your reasoning as I would never imagine you could go for cheap arguments
>instead of admitting that your partner in discussion is right.
>I thought better of you,
Hmm...the Mac ROM's are to a very large extent what makes a Mac a Mac( along
with the rest of the System Software). So I don't see it just as a legal
issue. It's not as though the Amiga is doing anything interesting along the
lines of the NeXT Mac software emulator( which is reverse engineering the
toolbox,etc...). The ST emuates a Mac. The Mac, Amiga and ST all use the
same cpu. I'd be more impressed if they could at least get the emulation
right. Basically I see nothing wrong with what I said. You are in effect
taking what makes a Mac+ and sticking it into the Amiga. While you're at it
you might as well include the case!
Barry McConnell
>In article <?&JKF#-@irie.ais.org> cyt...@ais.org (Tim Devlin) writes:
>>CBM has released the 386-BB in both Europe and Canada, and U.S. dealers now
>>have the order specs for them, from what I have heard, you will be able to
>>order one here in the U.S. in the next month or two at the latest.
> Is it me or are Amiga users in U.S. being discriminated? (386BB and
>A500+)
No. We're being discriminated against, not you. Here in the UK/Ireland, we
can't even buy the 2.0 upgrade kits! :-(( Even developers are having problems
getting hold of them. They aren't due for several weeks yet, and when they
*do* finally come out, they will cost 79 GBP, which is about US$130. The way
the pricing structure is, the price in Ireland will be between $150 and $210.
The irony of it all is that any Joe Bloggs can walk in off the street and buy
a nice new A500+ or A1500+ and get the ROM, disks, Denise and (smaller) manual,
for a rock-bottom price (A500+ is #350=$570, A1500+ is #600=$980). Both
machines come with 1Mb of RAM, and the 1500+ has 2 floppy drives.
The best way to get 2.04 on older Amigas? Sell it to someone who wants to play
games, and buy a new machine.
>Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii
Barry.
bmcc...@unix1.tcd.ie
Justin Sullivan
> I'm not too familiar with Adobe Illustrator; is this a color painting
> program? How does it compare to Deluxe Paint IV for the Amiga?
>
> -- Gerald
Adobe Illustrator, like Aldus Freehand (which is a lot easier and a great deal
more flexible), is a color PostScript drawing/illustration program. For serious
graphics, infographics, ads, illustrations, etc. Deluxe Paint IV is a child's
program. For those purposes.. Much of the fancy magazine art these days is
probably done with one or the other, for instance.
I do not commonly deal with regular 24-bit and better paint programs, but
PixelPaint Professional 2.0.1 is rather nice.. There are several others in it's
class, but this is the only one I use.
Justin Sullivan
> Even more, the A3000 is awesome with the proper add-ons. The general
> impression I get from people who have used the Quadra is, "Hey, isn't
> an 040 machine supposed to be faster than that?" On the other hand,
> I showed a friend some music programs (multitasking with animations)
> and games on my A500. I just told him that the computer is only 7.14 MHz;
> he still cannot believe it.
Nearly all Quadra users are running around out there with the '040's caches
disabled, since not all of their software runs properly on it (most programs
have been updated to work with the 040 caches, however), so they're really
using only a IIci (030/25) with fast video and I/O. This is of course a
software patch provided by Apple if and when you have a program that did not
listen and hence does not work to well with an 040. Apple has been preparing
developers for an 040 and full 32-bit clean operations for THREE YEARS now, so
no developer has any excuse, and Apple does not deserve any blame.
> I don't know if the Amiga is the best choice for a music machine, but it is
> an excellent choice for music and graphics and programming...
> The Amiga, of course, has dozens of paint programs, too.
All depends.. The music/MIDI software on the mac is better.. The available MIDI
hardware is better, the system software supports it directly.. Same thing with
paint programs, although there are some out there that are not well-written. I
assume this is true with the Amiga as well, since it happens on any and every
platform.
> What do the applications you mention do? Are you sure there are no
> equivalent Amiga programs (Maple, PageStream, Art Department Pro, etc.)?
There are a number of sophisticated (and superior) replacements for Maple on
the Mac. Mathematica is one, but not the best. Theorist is a good one.. Some
really nice statistical programs, too.
PageMaker is the mainstay of desktop publishing, PERIOD.. On a Mac, usually,
since the latest version (4.2) has a zillion features that even the PC/Windows
version doesn't. QuarkXPress is more professional (and a little more
complicated and carries a higher price tag), but PageMaker is the easiest to
use. There are "personal" page layout programs as well.
And for REAL "paint" programs, Adobe Photoshop is KING. It is the most powerful
image-enhancement program available for any personal computer (if not for ANY
computer). Anyone that knows what it can do would NOT disagree, since it's
features and highlights are not even approached by anything else.
> Given that I could afford either the Amiga or the Quadra, there is still
> no choice to make. The Amiga is simply the better system.
Since you don't seem to know much about the Mac market at all (no offense
intended), how can you really say that? Didn't you say that instead of hardware
being the primary concern, determine your needs and then buy the hardware that
runs what you need.
Since you've never even heard of the most common applications that run on the
Mac, it would be impossible for you to be an example of your own advice.
> Perhaps not. If you are looking for a standard for multimedia, for ONE
> standard, I don't think that is going to happen.
Don't be too sure.. In my opinion, there is really nothing fancy about
QuickTime. It just provides a really nice, stable foundation for multimedia.
But then again, there are no specifics available to the public yet, so I don't
know its full potential. With the right hardware (like Video Spigot from
RasterOps) and the right software (Adobe Premier), it's a VERY powerful tool.
There was some talk about QuickTime on Windows, but that's very unlikely.
Microsoft's loss.. :)
Gavriel State
>>because Apple will sue you (Apple has this lawsuit thing...).
>
>Again you repeat after me. I said that this is there for legal reasons.
Well, hard to say. Abacus Research and Development has developed a clean-room
clone of most of the Mac+ ROMs *AND* system software in a library called
'ROMlib'. It will run on just about any platform you choose to throw at
it (from the NeXT to Apollos to Suns to PClowns w. VGA). They even have
a binary interface (available only on the NeXT right now) so you can run
shrink-wrap applications without having to have the source code. Apple
knows about them, and hasn't sued yet....
(It should be noted that the ARDI stuff is still quite limited, but extremely
impressive none-the-less.....it is only 'officially' qualified to run
Microsoft Word, and soon Excel)
There's no reason why you couldn't make it run on the Amiga. (ObAdvocacy (-8).
>Repeating after Mac World (April 1992) pg21: If Mac owners need color,
>the bottom line for memory is that they never have enough. Period. Just lots
>of dialog boxes asking if an application should be opened despite the
>shortage of memory. [End of quote].
This is clerly not true. It (obviously) depends on what you are *DOING* with
color. If you need to manipuate large images (300dpi 24-bit color things)
then you are going to need lots of memory. If you just want to make the GUI
look pretty, then you don't really need much more than on a mono machine.
>Drawing on it I could guess that there is no difference between 4MB limit
>and 8MB limit for color (yet you complained that AMAX users don't get color).
>Our old Macs work well enough with less memory. We just don't try to put
>System 7 on it. (Again after MacWorld, the same paragraph: Apple is still
>grappling with how to present users with a 2 MB system, but the reality
>is that users need about 5MB to have a usable system running 7. [ End of
>quote])
Well, I don't know whether I would really trust MacWorld, considering all the
trash they seem to be spreading, but: I have a 4 Meg Powerbook 100 (16Mhz
68k w. 4 megs of RAM) and it runs System 7 with *GOBS* of memory to spare.
In fact, I often run with a 1 Meg RAMdisk so the hard disk doesn't have to
be used alot (wastes batterys, don't 'cha know). The System software eats
only about 900k - and that includes about 300k for the Finder (can't remember
precicely, but it is a reasonable figure). System 6.0.8 will actually use up
a touch more! If you really need to conserve memory you can always kill
off the Finder and have as much memory around as you would running Sys 6
without MultiFinder.
As for speed: it's considerably faster than I expected it to be, considering
it's only a piddling 68k. If the Classic II (deservedly maligned here for
it's crippled architecture) runs as fast, then most average-joe users will
find it very acceptable for the tasks which it was designed for (ie: not
running PhotoShop). And this is comming from someone with a considerable
amount of experience on high-powered UNIX boxen. [My other machine is a
loaded NeXTStation].
>I wouldn't use Apples implementation of VM anyway. Why it is so that VM
>of size more than double that of RAM is unadvisable (slows down significantly)?
>Why doesn't it allow to open program which requires more RAM than is
>installed? And this VM conflicts with the built in VM to programs such
>as Adobe Photoshop or ColorStudio - which happened to be our preferred.
The reason why Apple says that > 2x real memory is unadvisable is not because
it slows down significantly (again, that obviously depends on what you are
doing with it), but because you will begin to notice the difference. The
claim is that with 2x the amount of VM you won't likely notice any difference.
Further, I know of no limitation regarding how much memory you can give
you application....I could be wrong on this one, but I recall having run
programs that needed more memory than was available in 'real' RAM at least
once or twice...
As to conflicts with Photoshop or ColorStudio VM - piffle! If VM had been
available when those programs were designed, they wouldn't use their own
VM systems. Trust me: I have written a Mac program that has to deal with
arbitrarily huge bitmaped images. Since it was also supposed to be able to
run on a 68k-based Mac, I wasn't able to count on VM being available. Thus
every time it accessed a scanline it had to waste time figuring out if the
damn thing was in memory or not and page it in if it wasn't. Such things are
slow and ugly compared to a real VM system that can rely on hardware support
like an MMU. Now if PhotoShop or ColorStudio are doing idiotic things like
messing with the MMU themselves, then the conflict is their fault, not Sys 7's.
>On the Sparc I type these words, our swap space is 16 times the size of RAM.
>(in fact if there is too much going on and it starts trashing the machine
>is useless too. You type and you see what you type after a few seconds)
On UNIX machines I have worked on though the swap space avaiable may be
equal to the size of the disk available to swap to, rarely does the machine not
begin to become unacceptably slow when VM > 3x real memory. Not that the
SPARCstation I is a particularly quick beast to begin with....
>>So putting mac Plus ROMs into an Amiga is a good way to not use the
>>Amigas abilities.
>
>I guess one shall not expect that something wonderful would happen and
>suddenly Mac had all the capabilities of Amiga. Just by running its software
>on it. It would be too good :-)
Putting AMAX into an Amiga is a good way to get access to lots of basic
buisiness/productivity software that the Amiga would otherwise not have
access to. It will not let you use some of the high-powered software
that high-end Macs are bought for to any great degree of efficiency.
>> Go ahead, use it.
Justin Sullivan
> In article <1992Mar3.0...@seas.gwu.edu> ger...@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald
G. Washington) writes:
> >
> >I'm not too familiar with Adobe Illustrator; is this a color painting
> >program? How does it compare to Deluxe Paint IV for the Amiga?
>
> It's a structure-drawing program. Like Professional Draw.
It's an illustration program. AutoCAD is a "structure-drawing" program.. try
doing multicolor PostScript fills and blends with AutoCAD.. Or even
"Professional Draw.."
Justin Sullivan
> Illustrator on whatever palatform (Mac, PC, or NeXT) is hardly the best
> graphics program out there. It's ok featurewise, but the UI *SUCKS* in
> comparison to CorelDRAW! In fact, the UI for every other professional
> vector-oriented illustration package pales in comparison to CorelDRAW.
I'm not very fond of Illustrator myself, but I do use it. The UI is pretty
lame, but very simple, which helps a lot of people.. Too bad the whole program
is so restraining.. It's not necessarily a vector-oriented program. AutoCAD is,
but most illustration packages aren't. Canvas is, and then it isn't.. It does
CAD and illustration.. Vector and raster by definition, but what do you expect?
A vector monitor!? :)
lind...@cc.helsinki.fi
> In article <1992Mar4.0...@osc.edu>, de...@fac2.tmc.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
> |> If Mac displaying B/W is a valid Mac platform, so is AMAX Mac emulation a
> |> valid Mac platform.
> |>
>
> Valid, certainly. But cheezy! (but that's just the Mac II owners perspective.
> If 512x342 B&W makes you happy, GO FOR IT!) Of course, them Amigas
Amax can use resolutions upto 640*512 and if I remember correctly A2024 (or
whatever was the megapixel-monitor).
--
Jarkko Lindblad
lind...@cc.helsinki.fi
Daniel Norman Johnson
|> In article <s-6...@rpi.edu> joh...@rpi.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Mar4.0...@osc.edu>, de...@fac2.tmc.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> Do most of Macs display color? If not so why people who buy them claim that
|> >|> they have a valid Mac platform?
|> >|> If Mac displaying B/W is a valid Mac platform, so is AMAX Mac emulation a
|> >|> valid Mac platform.
|> >|>
|> >
|> >Valid, certainly. But cheezy! (but that's just the Mac II owners perspective.
|> >If 512x342 B&W makes you happy, GO FOR IT!) Of course, them Amigas
|> >must be really cheap (monitarily, not in terms of quality) if it costs
|> >less than a Classic to get one and an emulator... But hey anythings
|> >possible.
|>
|> You confirmed what I said. In fact most Amiga users do not use any Mac for
|> the reason you attached to a Classic.
|>
An odd statement this. Are you saying that this limit applies to any Mac?
I assume not. Perhaps you mean it applies to "most" Macs. Your right.
Sometimes I wonder why people buy so many Classics- they aren't really worth
it, to my way of thinking. Such a dead end. Most Mac models are SOOOOO
much better than that is is positively scarey. Even an LC (these are arount
$1800 now, I think.. not sure) blows it away so completely its not even funny.
THat's all IMHO of course. I suppose there must be SOMEONE who things
the 9-inch screen amplifies the Artistic Spirit of its user or something
like that. :)
|> >
|> >More to the point is that B&W is still usefull- I agree. But the Plus
|> >ROMs have other problems... which I discuss below.
|> >
|> >|> >Do you still have to get the
|> >|> >Mac+ ROM's( after all put a Mac+ motherboard in the Amiga tower and claim
|> >|> >you have the best of both worlds!).
|> >|>
|> >|> Sorry Philip. Here you are unfair. You know very well that you really do not
|> >|> need these ROMs for other than legal reasons yet you try to imply that you
|> >|> really need a Mac hardware to run a Mac software. I'm disappointed with
|> >|> your reasoning as I would never imagine you could go for cheap arguments
|> >|> instead of admitting that your partner in discussion is right.
|> >|> I thought better of you,
|> >|>
|> >|> >Philip
|> >|>
|> >|> Regards,
|> >|>
|> >|> Dariusz Bolski
|> >|>
|> >
|> >You do need the contence of those ROMs. You can't do it in software
|> >because Apple will sue you (Apple has this lawsuit thing...).
|>
|> Again you repeat after me. I said that this is there for legal reasons
Sorry I thought you mean you did not nead the -->contence<-- of the ROMs.
You do. If you are saying 'ah but you COULD put it all in software', you are
right. You could. Maybe if you payed royalties to Apple or something it
would work... I guess we are agreeing again. Annoying, isn't it? :)
But isn't repeat after me a little strong here?
Or there?
Must be the echo (echo... echo.... echo...) :)
|>
|> >But consider this. Yer Mac Plus ROMs are really weak.
|>
|> Yet people (and among them we) still find use for them (Mac Plus )
|> for wordprocessing.
|>
I would think you'd use an Amiga word processor for that, so why
emulate for it?
|> > But you cannot use more than 4 MB of
|> >RAM.
|>
|> Repeating after Mac World (April 1992) pg21: If Mac owners need color,
|> the bottom line for memory is that they never have enough. Period. Just lots
|> of dialog boxes asking if an application should be opened despite the
|> shortage of memory. [End of quote].
|>
This Makes no sence. MacWorld is wrong, I know from personal experience.
I think what they are thinking that for color painting programs, you need
huge gobs of memory (24 bit bitmaps are huge, and 8 bit bitmaps are no joke),
but this does not apply to anything else. Drawing programs do not require much
more space than they would on a B&W system- just extra space for color info.
How much depends on how fancy the color support is, but it could be just 6
bytes (for a single rgb color record)
On 2 color macs- the IIsi and IIci- the video is in the main RAM. This was a
mistake, because it is SLOW. On these macs, you can use less RAM for it by
using less color (switch down to 4 bit color, or grey scale. This does not
apply for most Macs, which either use video cards or on-board (but separate)
video ram.
I expect that MacWorld just mean "for painting programs", but neglected
to mention it. Take it from my personal experience, and my technical
knowledge (such as it is) that Color does NOT make any significant
additional demands on memory on most Macintoshes.
|> Drawing on it I could guess that there is no difference between 4MB limit
|> and 8MB limit for color (yet you complained that AMAX users don't get color).
What in the name of the Almighty Kumquat does this mean?
Do you mean that you think the 8MB limit was somehow conenct to color QuickDraw?
You were mistaken. that had to do with a rather stupid design decision in
early ROMs, now corrected. In System 7 there is no 8 MB limit.
[to be fair, I'll mention that certain systems- namely the SE/30, II, IIx,
and IIcx- do not under 7.0 get to access more than 8 MB. However, Apple
is now distributing a free patch to fix this. And they are swearing up and
down that they will fix this in v 7.1]
Neither this patch nor any other product will fix the Plus's 4 meg limit,
however. How that limit got there I dunno, but it has not been fixed.
|> Our old Macs work well enough with less memory. We just don't try to put
|> System 7 on it. (Again after MacWorld, the same paragraph: Apple is still
|> grappling with how to present users with a 2 MB system, but the reality
|> is that users need about 5MB to have a usable system running 7. [ End of
|> quote])
|>
|> >You cannot use Virtual Memory
|>
|> I wouldn't use Apples implementation of VM anyway. Why it is so that VM
|> of size more than double that of RAM is unadvisable (slows down significantly)?
Well, I would use Apple implementation. It works rather well, although
it noticable slows time program load (if they are loading into VM that is)
Other than that the slowdown is rarely noticable to me. As to your second
question- although I could guess, I am not sure enough to do so. Perhaps
someone else can tell us why this is? (I dont even know THAT it is, by the way,
as I do not use that much VM, but it may well be)
|> Why doesn't it allow to open program which requires more RAM than is
|> installed?
It does. Honest. Really. Maybe it just likes me.
!> And this VM conflicts with the built in VM to programs such
|> as Adobe Photoshop or ColorStudio - which happened to be our preferred.
|>
Does it? I don't know why it does that, unless Photoshop or Colorstudio
use the same interrupt to do the job. In that case they'd conflict. You'd
just have to use one or the other, and not both. I really dont see how
apple could have avoided this one.
|> On the Sparc I type these words, our swap space is 16 times the size of RAM.
|> (in fact if there is too much going on and it starts trashing the machine
|> is useless too. You type and you see what you type after a few seconds)
I dont see how this is relevent to MacOS, but the SPARCstation IPC I am
using to type this in does not have a lag problem. I have no clue
how to tell how much swap space it uses. But I find what you
describe rather easy to believe- my experience with Unix is that it is
pretty slow.
|> >(and it doesn't matter if you have an
|> >030, the ROMs are incompatible anyway) You do not get expansion slots.
|>
|> Can you quote what percent of all sold Macs do not have expansion slots?
|> Then calculate how many people it means. Then check if this number is
|> smaller than this of sold AMAXes.
|>
Ahem. I included the yodeling and hallucinating section to address the
question "but ***WHY***"? That seems to be what you are asking so lets
move on...
|> >
|> >"What?" I hear you cry... "but how could having ROMs that know about expansion
|> >slots be useful for an emulator?" I hear you yodel (well maybe I am just
|> >hallucinating)..
|>
|> I guess you do. Although your points are valid technically (that something
|> is or is not used or possible) but they don't make sense for these people
|> who use machines never expanding them, and for those who use machines
|> not equipped with a math coprocessor. And there is enough many of them that
|> such configurations are being made available as a valid platforms.
Im sorry, I just don't understand anything you just said after "I guess
you do".. could you rephrase? I just completely lost you there.
|>
|> [ all technically interesting information deleted ]
|> >
|> >So putting mac Plus ROMs into an Amiga is a good way to not use the
|> >Amigas abilities.
|>
|> I guess one shall not expect that something wonderful would happen and
|> suddenly Mac had all the capabilities of Amiga. Just by running its software
|> on it. It would be too good :-)
Well, if you put the newest ROMs (the 1 meg roms) into an Amiga, patched
the amazingly, and let it rip, you WOULD be able to use your
Amigas abilities. Or more of them anyway. Like color. Like even
device independant color, which is handy. You'd be able to use
lots of RAM, VM, and all of that wonderfull stuff that we have been
talking about.
Of course, youd still make better use of your hardware on AmigaDOS (is
this the right name?) I expect. I mean, it was written to take advantage
of the Amigas abilities right? MacOS certainly wasnt. The reverse is also
true, I'll wager.
|>
|> > Go ahead, use it.
|>
|> Thank you. Can I use other machines too ? 8^)
|>
I dunno... hmmm.. that's a tuffie... hmmmm <think think think think> I'll
have to get back to you on that one... :)
|> >We'll forgive
|> >you for using Amiga software on an Amiga :) [now dont go flaming me because
|> >some people have being saying Amiga software stinks...
|>
|> 8-))))
|>
|> >I am not in a
|> >position to know this, so I'll give the Amiga the benefit of the doubt,
|> >and assume it can do the job]
|>
|> Sure it does. As well as other boxes. Just easier.
Now that you must show me. Remember, Im just an ignorant savage.
But please, go ahead, show me why Amigas do 'the job' 'easier', and
don't forget to tell me what jobs you mean, and what you mean
by 'easier'.
Just so this doesn't need to be asked, I mean by 'job' the job that -->you<--
use it for, not necessarily what I would use it for. That is, I am
--assuming-- that you made the right choice in getting an Amiga.
Its worth pointing out, I think, that the Amiga is DEFINITELY --not-- the
best box for EVERY job. For instance, its very expenice for storing
bread sticks in. I'd use a cardboard box for that. :P
|>
|> Dariusz Bolski
|>
--
- Dan Johnson
Daniel Barrett
>And for REAL "paint" programs, Adobe Photoshop is KING. It is the most
>powerful image-enhancement program available for any personal computer (if
>not for ANY computer). Anyone that knows what it can do would NOT disagree,
>since it's features and highlights are not even approached by anything else.
Can you send data from a mathematics program directly into Photoshop
so it renders mathematical graphs? Can you send paint commands to Photoshop
by modem, so it can automatically create statistical charts of the data
being received? Can Photoshop use animated brushes that change while you
paint with them?
Power is in the eye of the beholder.
Justin, making statements like "DPaint 4 is a child's toy" in an
Amiga group will always get you flamed. Just once, try making your point
without being arrogant or sounding like a 2-year-old. Why can't you be
friendly, like this? "I think that Pongoshop is more powerful than QPaint 4
for my work, because it supports Postscript, uses higher resolutions, and a
7-dimensional morphing command. Check it out -- it's really a really fun
program and makes me very productive."
Dan
//////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 -- bar...@cs.umass.edu |
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
Norman St. John Polevaulter
Barrett) says:
>In article <1992Mar3.1...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> u
>dtib...@csws14.ic.sunysb.ed
>(David Tiberio) writes:
>> And there are 2 386 BB, plus one more in development...
>
> What is this other 386 BridgeBoard? The only one I know of is the 386SX BB
>that has been bashed in .emulations repeatedly for being too little much too
>late, and for its lack of VGA support.
NOW WAIT A MINUTE. You haven't been paying attention to what's being said
over in .emulations...
Listen: There is NO WAY to get a VGA-sized color palette with the Amiga's
(current) custom chips. It WON'T WORK. It CAN'T BE DONE. Therefore, on-board
VGA on the Amiga's display is impossible, so stop bashing Commodore for
not putting it in.
However, if you really want VGA, here's a cool idea: Buy the VGA Card Of Your
Choice, dirt cheap. Plug it into one of the IBM slots that are standard
features on every Amiga model (except the A500.) And viola! VGA graphics,
supported perfectly by the Bridgeboard.
It's terribly misleading to say that the 386SX BB "doesn't support VGA."
Of course it does. It supports VGA just as much as any other
PC clone does: you plug a VGA card into a slot and away you go.
[Your blood pressure just went up.] Mark Sachs IS: mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: Penn State cares about my money, not my opinions.
"All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could really set the
darkness on -- and you perverted his work into those horrible machines!"
Chung Lau
>In article <1992Mar3.1...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau) writes:
>>
>> It's a structure-drawing program. Like Professional Draw.
> ------------------------
>Your kidding right? ;-)
>
Like != equivalent (features, power..). 8)
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii
David Meiklejohn
>
> Is it me or are Amiga users in U.S. being discriminated? (386BB and
>A500+)
No, it's just your punishment for not buying enough Amigas.
:-)
--
David Meiklejohn | Internet : dav...@qdpii.comp.qpdi.oz.au
Computer Systems Officer, QDPI | Fax : +61 70 92 3593
Mareeba, Australia | Voice : +61 70 92 1555
Gerald G. Washington
>for this, the ROMs coudl be in software. But that code has got to be
>somewhere!
Sure you can do it in software. There is a public domain program available
which copies the ROMs to disk. The ROM file can then be loaded into RAM for
faster access.
-- Gerald
Gerald G. Washington
>> I'm not too familiar with Adobe Illustrator; is this a color painting
>> program? How does it compare to Deluxe Paint IV for the Amiga?
>>
>
>Adobe Illustrator, like Aldus Freehand (which is a lot easier and a great deal
>more flexible), is a color PostScript drawing/illustration program. For serious
>graphics, infographics, ads, illustrations, etc. Deluxe Paint IV is a child's
>program.
Exactly. This is the kind of affordable software that makes the Amiga an
excellent general purpose computer. The "general purpose" user is not going
to buy a $2000 drawing program or a $1500 music program. Deluxe Paint IV has
excellent functionality for its price.
-- Gerald
Gerald G. Washington
>NOW WAIT A MINUTE. You haven't been paying attention to what's being said
>over in .emulations...
>
>Listen: There is NO WAY to get a VGA-sized color palette with the Amiga's
>(current) custom chips. It WON'T WORK. It CAN'T BE DONE. Therefore, on-board
>VGA on the Amiga's display is impossible, so stop bashing Commodore for
>not putting it in.
>
>However, if you really want VGA, here's a cool idea: Buy the VGA Card Of Your
>Choice, dirt cheap. Plug it into one of the IBM slots that are standard
>features on every Amiga model (except the A500.) And viola! VGA graphics,
>supported perfectly by the Bridgeboard.
Hmm, if Commodore bundled a VGA card with the BridgeBoard, maybe even
attaching the card to the board, then the BridgeBoard would have VGA
capabilities. As you say, this would be dirt cheap.
-- Gerald
Gerald G. Washington
>I write:
>> What do the applications you mention do? Are you sure there are no
>> equivalent Amiga programs (Maple, PageStream, Art Department Pro, etc.)?
>
>There are a number of sophisticated (and superior) replacements for Maple on
>the Mac. Mathematica is one, but not the best. Theorist is a good one.. Some
>really nice statistical programs, too.
>PageMaker is the mainstay of desktop publishing, PERIOD.. On a Mac, usually,
>since the latest version (4.2) has a zillion features that even the PC/Windows
>version doesn't. QuarkXPress is more professional (and a little more
>complicated and carries a higher price tag), but PageMaker is the easiest to
>use. There are "personal" page layout programs as well.
>image-enhancement program available for any personal computer (if not for ANY
>computer). Anyone that knows what it can do would NOT disagree, since it's
>features and highlights are not even approached by anything else.
I doubt this. I've heard that CorelDRAW is supposed to be top-notch.
>> Given that I could afford either the Amiga or the Quadra, there is still
>> no choice to make. The Amiga is simply the better system.
>
>Since you don't seem to know much about the Mac market at all (no offense
>intended), how can you really say that? Didn't you say that instead of hardware
>being the primary concern, determine your needs and then buy the hardware that
>runs what you need.
No, I didn't say this. It seems obvious that one would determine one's needs,
hardware and software and price, first before purchasing a computer. In
addition one should ask, "will I enjoy this system?", or "will it benefit me
to have a computer at home?"
>Since you've never even heard of the most common applications that run on the
>Mac, it would be impossible for you to be an example of your own advice.
Untrue. I am only familiar with the most common applications on the Mac.
This means the affordable programs which most Macs have: Mac Paint, Mac Draw,
Microsoft Word, Wordperfect, Mac Write II, Microsoft Works, etc. I have not
seen this QuarkXPress and the like. The general Mac user does not own these
more expensive, professional quality packages (unless they are copied from
the lab, but let's stick to legitimate reasons for choosing the computer).
Curious: why is it so hard to find the good painting and music programs
(not to mention games) for the Mac?
-- Gerald
Justin Sullivan
> Exactly. This is the kind of affordable software that makes the Amiga an
> excellent general purpose computer. The "general purpose" user is not going
> to buy a $2000 drawing program or a $1500 music program. Deluxe Paint IV has
> excellent functionality for its price.
>
> -- Gerald
Well, I wasn't going to say this, but.. You really are totally oblivious to the
Macintosh world, aren't you?
The mentioned packages of late with their approximate street prices..
Finale from Coda Systems: $500
Adobe Illustrator: $300
Aldus Freehand: $300
Adobe Photoshop (frequently bundled with 24-bit scanners): $500
Aldus PageMaker: $450
PixelPaint Professional: $250
QuarkXPress: $550+
Canvas: $300
Your GROSSLY inflated price guesstimates really make me wonder.. I have NEVER
seen anything like it. There is not one single other person in this group that
would even imagine software prices like that (that I know of). There is very
expensive Macintosh software, yes.. Like the $8000 ElectricImage software
responsible for the better part of the Terminator 2 effects.. But the programs
we've been talking about are all very reasonably priced (for software.. who's
the pirate? he who copies it or he who sells it at such a price? :)
Justin Sullivan
> jus...@graphlab.cc.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan) writes:
> >I write:
> >> What do the applications you mention do? Are you sure there are no
> >> equivalent Amiga programs (Maple, PageStream, Art Department Pro, etc.)?
> >
> >There are a number of sophisticated (and superior) replacements for Maple on
> >the Mac. Mathematica is one, but not the best. Theorist is a good one.. Some
> >really nice statistical programs, too.
> >PageMaker is the mainstay of desktop publishing, PERIOD.. On a Mac, usually,
> >since the latest version (4.2) has a zillion features that even the
PC/Windows
> >version doesn't. QuarkXPress is more professional (and a little more
> >complicated and carries a higher price tag), but PageMaker is the easiest to
> >use. There are "personal" page layout programs as well.
> >And for REAL "paint" programs, Adobe Photoshop is KING. It is the most
powerful
> >image-enhancement program available for any personal computer (if not for
ANY
> >computer). Anyone that knows what it can do would NOT disagree, since it's
> >features and highlights are not even approached by anything else.
>
> I doubt this. I've heard that CorelDRAW is supposed to be top-notch.
CorelDRAW cannot handle certain things that Freehand and Illustrator can. It's
not a PostScript drawing program as such, and cannot handle certain text
effects, and some of its operations are more awkward. I only wish that Freehand
had some of Illustrator's higher text functions that make certain objects a
little more customizable. If the two programs were integrated, they would be
unbeatable, but for now I'll just stick with Freehand.
Besides, Photoshop is NOT a drawing program. It is an image-enhancement program
with support for 32-bit color, a good helping hand for device-independent
color, support for direct RGB and CMYK editing ON-SCREEN, and many color models
for color selection and printing.. Separations, masking, multiple channels,
special effects (MANY special effects), several file formats (including AMIGA),
so on and so forth. LetraSet's Color Studio is the only other Mac program in
it's class, and although a very good program, it isn't very robust (in my
opinion).
> >Since you've never even heard of the most common applications that run on
the
> >Mac, it would be impossible for you to be an example of your own advice.
>
> Untrue. I am only familiar with the most common applications on the Mac.
> This means the affordable programs which most Macs have: Mac Paint, Mac
Draw,
> Microsoft Word, Wordperfect, Mac Write II, Microsoft Works, etc. I have not
> seen this QuarkXPress and the like. The general Mac user does not own these
> more expensive, professional quality packages (unless they are copied from
> the lab, but let's stick to legitimate reasons for choosing the computer).
> Curious: why is it so hard to find the good painting and music programs
> (not to mention games) for the Mac?
>
> -- Gerald
VERY TRUE. MacPaint is total garbage.. So is MacDraw. Intelligent people do not
use these anymore. They use SuperPaint, paint/drawing, 32-bit color, effects,
etc.. (in version 3) Many people use Canvas these days for CAD and precision
drawing, etc. The general mac user DOES use things like PageMaker and
Illustrator and Freehand. They are VERY COMMON Macintosh applications, not
expensive, fancy things out of reach of the common man. In fact, their retail
prices are very similar to Word and YOUR idea of "maintstream" Mac programs.
And if you open a mail-order magazine with mac stuff, you will see that it is
painfully *EASY* to find these good painting and music programs. No wonder you
don't like the Mac, when you've never seen any of the good software!
But nearly all the Mac games are crap, though I haven't seen the latest
renditions. They say they're very similar to the PC versions, but somehow, I
doubt it. Tracon II is very good, though.. :)
Mike Farren
> What is this other 386 BridgeBoard? The only one I know of is the 386SX BB
>that has been bashed in .emulations repeatedly for being too little much too
>late, and for its lack of VGA support.
Nope. Bashed by *some* (mostly those you'd expect), and for it's lack of
on-board VGA, not lack of VGA support. Plug in a VGA card, eh? As the
clone jocks keep reminding us, they're cheap.
>So far, it has taken Commodore about 6
>months to a year to finally get a product to the dealer (and mail-order)
>shelves once that product has been announced.
This is, for the most part, untrue. Commodore is better about not announcing
product before it's actually shipping than any other computer company I
know. The exceptions are usually those things which management decides
should be hyped, like CDTV. But *most* of the products I've seen from
Commodore over the last five or six years were available within a very
short time after their announcement. Shipping delays to the dealer were
the usual hangup, and those for only a month or two. Witness 2.04 and the
A500+, for two recent examples. Now there are some products whose
existence is known long before the official announcement, but you can't
blame Commodore for those products not being on the shelves. At least,
not in the sense you're implying here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Farren - no longer employed by Commodore. Still only my opinions,
and not those of any organization.
Mike Farren
>
>But consider this. Yer Mac Plus ROMs are really weak. Its not just
>color- you don't get color thats true. I don't know if you get multi-monitor
>support or screens bigger than 512x342.
I believe you can. The Radius monitors predate the SE, at any event.
And ordinary QuickDraw is based on a 32K X 32K "field", so there wouldn't
be any problem there.
>But you cannot use more than 4 MB of RAM.
Are you sure? I thought this was a hardware limitation of the Plus,
not inherent in the OS. What *was* inherent in the OS was a 16MB limitation
(using high-order bytes as flags, shame, shame :-), but I think that
more than 4MB is supported.
Marc N Barrett
> Can you send data from a mathematics program directly into Photoshop
>so it renders mathematical graphs?
Can you import structured graphics into any of the Amiga paint programs
so that the resulting images can look good when laser printed or photo
typeset? For all I know, all of the MAC paint programs handle structured
graphics as well as bitmapped graphics, while none of the Amiga paint
programs handle structured graphics.
[rabble deleted]
Gerald G. Washington
>> excellent general purpose computer. The "general purpose" user is not going
>> to buy a $2000 drawing program or a $1500 music program. Deluxe Paint IV has
>> excellent functionality for its price.
>>
>> -- Gerald
>Well, I wasn't going to say this, but..
Of course you were...
>You really are totally oblivious to the
>Macintosh world, aren't you?
>The mentioned packages of late with their approximate street prices..
>
>Finale from Coda Systems: $500
>Adobe Illustrator: $300
>Aldus Freehand: $300
>Adobe Photoshop (frequently bundled with 24-bit scanners): $500
>Aldus PageMaker: $450
>PixelPaint Professional: $250
>QuarkXPress: $550+
>Canvas: $300
Can anyone verify these? I'm not saying they're wrong, but, considering the
source, I must question their validity. (Also considering the quality that
these packages are supposed to have.) This could, of course, be another one
of Mr. Sullivan's tests...
Even so, agreeing that my estimates were way off, the general user is not
going to buy many $300 software packages. Heck, I have free music module
composers/players which beat any music I've heard on the Mac; module
trackers are something the average user with a slight interest in music
is going to get. (Yes, I know about the hi-fi, super-midi, mega-jam systems
that are available; how many people own this stuff?)
>Your GROSSLY inflated price guesstimates really make me wonder.. I have NEVER
>seen anything like it. There is not one single other person in this group that
>would even imagine software prices like that (that I know of).
Hmm... I guess you haven't purchased much high quality software. I haven't,
but I have at least looked at the prices. DynaCADD sells for arount $730,
and then there's Caligari Pro which costs over $3000...
Wait a second--I happen to have the February 1992 issue of MacWorld. Let's
see...
Alias Sketch $1995 (list)
MacTOPAS $7495 (list)
Presenter Professional $3600 (list)
Sculpt 3D $2500 (list)
Copy Bridge $1500
InPosition $1750
AdLink $2500 (list)
Mathematic Enhanced V2.0 $789
(seems he got this next one about right)
Quark XPress 3.0 $519
Three-D 1.0 $1149
Director 3.0 $689
Claris CAD 2.0 $644
Infini-D 3D Modeler $647
(he comes close on this one, too)
Adobe Illustrator 3.0 $369
(but the following does not include scanner)
Adobe PhotoShop 2.0 $549
(can they really include a 24-bit scanner at that price?)
Adobe Font Folio 1-150 $14790 (!)
(must be a heck of a lot, but there's a cheaper version)
Adobe Font Folio CD-ROM 1-150 $13915
Aldus Design Team $888
4th D 2.1 Compiler $879
Macromind 3-D $1149
Quick View Studio $1795 (is this that new QuickTime?)
Wordperfect 2.01 (5 pack) $1299
So there's no denying that the Mac has top-quality professional software.
This, however, does not make it a good general purpose computer--at least
not for the home user. What makes it a good general purpose computer is
quality affordable software. The Amiga has this, so I'm sure the Mac must,
too. Of course, affordability is a relative term. Saying the Amiga is not
a good general purpose computer is simply false. Saying the Mac is a better
general purpose computer than the Amiga is a valid opinion.
-- Gerald
Norman St. John Polevaulter
(Justin Sullivan) says:
>Gerald G. Washington writes
>> Exactly. This is the kind of affordable software that makes the Amiga an
>> excellent general purpose computer. The "general purpose" user is not going
>> to buy a $2000 drawing program or a $1500 music program. Deluxe Paint IV
>> has excellent functionality for its price.
>Well, I wasn't going to say this, but.. You really are totally oblivious to
>the Macintosh world, aren't you?
>
>The mentioned packages of late with their approximate street prices..
[astronomical prices deleted -- the LOWEST was $250 for a paint program,
and well up to $500 for a desktop publisher!]
>Your GROSSLY inflated price guesstimates really make me wonder.. I have NEVER
>seen anything like it. There is not one single other person in this group that
>would even imagine software prices like that (that I know of). There is very
>expensive Macintosh software, yes.. Like the $8000 ElectricImage software
>responsible for the better part of the Terminator 2 effects.. But the programs
>we've been talking about are all very reasonably priced (for software.. who's
>the pirate? he who copies it or he who sells it at such a price? :)
I think we have here a fundamental gap (hell, a yawning chasm) between
Mac and Amiga people. If you were to go up to an Amiga owner and offer to
sell him or her a desktop publisher for $500, you'd be laughed off the street.
I mean, for god's sake man! You can buy a whole AMIGA SYSTEM, ready to
run, for less than that and still have enough cash left over for a down
payment on the top-of-the-line 3D renderer! (I think the system even comes
with DPaint III, too...)
This is one fundamental reason why it's nice to be an Amiga owner.
Everything's cheaper. (About half as expensive, compared to the Mac
stuff I've seen.) The companies have gotten the clue that we want value
for the money, and we won't shell out even $150 for something unless it's
bloody well worth it.
...Perhaps we've figured out now why people think the Quadra and high-end
Mac II's are such a good deal, hm? :-) or maybe :-( 'cause it's true...
Norman St. John Polevaulter
Hmm right back atcha. Some very good arguments were advanced over in
.emulations about this. Basically the point is that VGA cards vary
stupendously, some have simple capabilities, some are Super-Duper
Whizbang SVGA+++ cards, and it would be ultimately easier (and cheaper --
low cost was apparently a major factor in C='s design decisions
here) just to sell the board and let people pick the VGA card they
wanted, if indeed they needed VGA. And not everyone does, you know!
If you just need to run the word processor or spreadsheet they use
at work, VGA is a waste of money.
(Also, even if they did bundle a particular VGA card, I'm certain
someone we know would be bashing them right now for not picking the
right one... :-) :-) )
My point was and still is that it's grossly misleading to say that
the 386BB (which sounds like a decent product to me) "has no VGA
support." Of course it does. You plug in a VGA card, just like any
other clone.
Chung Lau
>doing multicolor PostScript fills and blends with AutoCAD.. Or even
>"Professional Draw.."
Color fills and blends are pretty typical features of "structure-
drawing" programs, but I guess "illustration" program is the right
word.
Though I would argue that PixelPaint 2.0 and Studio/32 are more
"illustration" program than Illustrator.
Dariusz Bolski
>In article <1992Mar4.0...@osc.edu> de...@fac2.tmc.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>>>You do need the contence of those ROMs. You can't do it in software
>>>because Apple will sue you (Apple has this lawsuit thing...).
>>
>>Again you repeat after me. I said that this is there for legal reasons.
>
>Well, hard to say. Abacus Research and Development has developed a clean-room
>clone of most of the Mac+ ROMs *AND* system software in a library called
>'ROMlib'. It will run on just about any platform you choose to throw at
>it (from the NeXT to Apollos to Suns to PClowns w. VGA). They even have
>a binary interface (available only on the NeXT right now) so you can run
>shrink-wrap applications without having to have the source code. Apple
>knows about them, and hasn't sued yet....
Not yet :-)
[ some interesting stuff deleted ]
>Well, I don't know whether I would really trust MacWorld, considering all the
>trash they seem to be spreading,
Now I am confused. Last time I quoted MacUser, I was told it's a trash.
I was told that MacWorld is good source. So I quote MacWorld. Now is it
a trash too? So what source I can trust?
[ some more reasonable stuff deleted ]
>>On the Sparc I type these words, our swap space is 16 times the size of RAM.
>>(in fact if there is too much going on and it starts trashing the machine
>>is useless too. You type and you see what you type after a few seconds)
>
>On UNIX machines I have worked on though the swap space avaiable may be
>equal to the size of the disk available to swap to, rarely does the machine not
>begin to become unacceptably slow when VM > 3x real memory.
I am sorry I confused you. I really made two points. One that 16 times the
size of RAM does not slow down a Sparc.( so why it does a Mac?)
And second (totally separate one) that VM, when it starts trashing,
it renders even such a nice box as Sparc totally useless.
One emacs session (5-6 MBytes), three Motif apps (over 1 MB each) and I am
out of installed RAM already. Then nice rendering session (15 - 60 MB) and
machine crawls.(hence slow response to a typing).
I wish programmers were taking more care of the size of
their programs. With their current carelessness there is NEVER enough memory
in the UNIX (or Mac) box. I wish they were as memory efficient as Amiga.
>>>So putting mac Plus ROMs into an Amiga is a good way to not use the
>>>Amigas abilities.
>>
>>I guess one shall not expect that something wonderful would happen and
>>suddenly Mac had all the capabilities of Amiga. Just by running its software
>>on it. It would be too good :-)
>
>Putting AMAX into an Amiga is a good way to get access to lots of basic
>buisiness/productivity software that the Amiga would otherwise not have
>access to. It will not let you use some of the high-powered software
>that high-end Macs are bought for to any great degree of efficiency.
True.
>Gavriel State | 2A Systems Design Engineering/Economics | University of Waterloo
Dariusz Bolski
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Dariusz Bolski The Hopkins Microcomputer Laboratory,
Systems Manager The Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design (ACCAD)
Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.A.
(614) 292-4982 e-mail: de...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
am...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
___________________________________________________________________________
Dariusz Bolski
[ agreed ]
>|> >
>|> >More to the point is that B&W is still usefull- I agree. But the Plus
>|> >ROMs have other problems... which I discuss below.
>|> >
>|> >|> >Do you still have to get the
>|> >|> >Mac+ ROM's( after all put a Mac+ motherboard in the Amiga tower and claim
>|> >|> >you have the best of both worlds!).
>|> >|>
>|> >|> Sorry Philip. Here you are unfair. You know very well that you really do not
>|> >|> need these ROMs for other than legal reasons yet you try to imply that you
>|> >|> really need a Mac hardware to run a Mac software. I'm disappointed with
>|> >|> your reasoning as I would never imagine you could go for cheap arguments
>|> >|> instead of admitting that your partner in discussion is right.
>|> >|> I thought better of you,
>|> >|>
>|> >|> >Philip
>|> >|>
>|> >|> Regards,
>|> >|>
>|> >|> Dariusz Bolski
>|> >|>
>|> >
>|> >You do need the contence of those ROMs. You can't do it in software
>|> >because Apple will sue you (Apple has this lawsuit thing...).
>|>
>|> Again you repeat after me. I said that this is there for legal reasons
>
>Sorry I thought you mean you did not nead the -->contence<-- of the ROMs.
>You do. If you are saying 'ah but you COULD put it all in software', you are
>right.
Thanks. This is what I really meant.
> You could. Maybe if you payed royalties to Apple or something it
>would work... I guess we are agreeing again. Annoying, isn't it? :)
>But isn't repeat after me a little strong here?
Sorry. This way I would say it in Polish. I really meant: "You have said what
I have said also. No disagreement". Sorry it sounded strong. I still learn
English and I appreciate kind warnings like yours helping me to locate these
subtle statement strength misuses. Thanks (Really).
>Or there?
>Must be the echo (echo... echo.... echo...) :)
8-)
I drew so subtle reasoning that it would take to much to prove its correctness.
To save bandwith from lots of misunderstandings (as unfortunately followed)
I rather take it back.
[ all mislead stuff deleted (I don't say wrong. Just leading in the wrong
direction) ]
[ stuff about VM deleted (more less agreed) ]
>|> >
>|> >"What?" I hear you cry... "but how could having ROMs that know about expansion
>|> >slots be useful for an emulator?" I hear you yodel (well maybe I am just
>|> >hallucinating)..
>|>
>|> I guess you do. Although your points are valid technically (that something
>|> is or is not used or possible) but they don't make sense for these people
>|> who use machines never expanding them, and for those who use machines
>|> not equipped with a math coprocessor. And there is enough many of them that
>|> such configurations are being made available as a valid platforms.
>
>Im sorry, I just don't understand anything you just said after "I guess
>you do".. could you rephrase? I just completely lost you there.
Too much deleted, but I can try to recall what I meant. I meant that not
having access to a coprocessor or expansion slots does not discredit AMAX
in any way. If it was, then it would also discredit all machines which
both without coprocessor (PCs, Macs others ) where never expanded with it,
nor a user never put anything into the expansion slot.
These machines are still useful and considered a perfectly valid platform.
If it is so, so is AMAX. I hope this sounds better.
>|>
>|> [ all technically interesting information deleted ]
>|> >
>|> >So putting mac Plus ROMs into an Amiga is a good way to not use the
>|> >Amigas abilities.
>|>
>|> I guess one shall not expect that something wonderful would happen and
>|> suddenly Mac had all the capabilities of Amiga. Just by running its software
>|> on it. It would be too good :-)
>
>Well, if you put the newest ROMs (the 1 meg roms) into an Amiga, patched
>the amazingly, and let it rip, you WOULD be able to use your
>Amigas abilities. Or more of them anyway. Like color. Like even
>device independant color, which is handy. You'd be able to use
>lots of RAM, VM, and all of that wonderfull stuff that we have been
>talking about.
>
>Of course, youd still make better use of your hardware on AmigaDOS (is
>this the right name?) I expect. I mean, it was written to take advantage
>of the Amigas abilities right? MacOS certainly wasnt. The reverse is also
>true, I'll wager.
True.
>
>|>
>|> > Go ahead, use it.
>|>
>|> Thank you. Can I use other machines too ? 8^)
>|>
>
>I dunno... hmmm.. that's a tuffie... hmmmm <think think think think> I'll
>have to get back to you on that one... :)
8-) BTW, What the hell is "a tuffie"? (English question)
>
>|> >We'll forgive
>|> >you for using Amiga software on an Amiga :) [now dont go flaming me because
>|> >some people have being saying Amiga software stinks...
>|>
>|> 8-))))
>|>
>|> >I am not in a
>|> >position to know this, so I'll give the Amiga the benefit of the doubt,
>|> >and assume it can do the job]
>|>
>|> Sure it does. As well as other boxes. Just easier.
>
>Now that you must show me. Remember, Im just an ignorant savage.
>But please, go ahead, show me why Amigas do 'the job' 'easier', and
>don't forget to tell me what jobs you mean, and what you mean
>by 'easier'.
>
>Just so this doesn't need to be asked, I mean by 'job' the job that -->you<--
>use it for, not necessarily what I would use it for. That is, I am
>--assuming-- that you made the right choice in getting an Amiga.
>
>Its worth pointing out, I think, that the Amiga is DEFINITELY --not-- the
>best box for EVERY job.
You are right as usually :-)
>For instance, its very expenice for storing
>bread sticks in. I'd use a cardboard box for that. :P
No in this I keep my shoes :^)
> - Dan Johnson
Steven D. Borrelli
>>expensive Macintosh software, yes.. Like the $8000 ElectricImage software
>>responsible for the better part of the Terminator 2 effects.. But the programs
I find it hard to believe that T2's graphic effects were not done on an SGI
box. Did any of last year's '030 Macs have the horsepower, or did they leave
them chugging away for hours at a time? Not ever having made a movie I have
no clue.....
>
>This is one fundamental reason why it's nice to be an Amiga owner.
>Everything's cheaper. (About half as expensive, compared to the Mac
>stuff I've seen.) The companies have gotten the clue that we want value
>for the money, and we won't shell out even $150 for something unless it's
>bloody well worth it.
>
Do you think this is why many "big" developers have not supported the Amiga?
It's quite possible that developers see the price of a A500 and conclude that
since most of the Amiga owners out there don't pay for a lot in HW, they must
not want to pay much in software. At such a low price a lot of people equate
the A500 with the C64 which was mainly bought in the US for the pirated games.
(Before anyone flames me about all the non-pirating things done on c64's, I'll
just tell you that every single one of the ~50 C=64 owners I know back in High
School had hundreds of pirated games. Everybody stole games like crazy back then)
--
Steven D. Borrelli
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute '92
bor...@rpi.edu (NeXTmail)
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>There are a number of sophisticated (and superior) replacements for Maple on
>the Mac. Mathematica is one, but not the best. Theorist is a good one.. Some
>really nice statistical programs, too.
Maple was always better( in my view) than Mathematica from a mathematical
point of view. Just look at the libraries. Mathematica has its roots in
SMP which was never considered very good compare to Maxima, Reduce, Maple,...
With MapleV, Maple has caught up with Mathematica from a graphics point of
view. Theorist is neat but a real lightweight. It is not a good symbolic
algebra program. It's at the level of Derive on the PC.
As far as statistical programs go, the Mac has Systat, SPSS, Data Desk Pro,...
and a bunch of speciality ones. Forgot there's Statview. Systat is probably
the best of the lot from a general statistical point of view. Data Desk is
the most novel. None of them is terribly exciting. Now if you said S, Gauss,
SAS,...were on the Mac that would be a different matter. The fact is the Mac is poor as a statistical platform. The PC is in fact better.
[ ]
Philip McDunnough
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Philip McDunnough
[ ]
>
>Exactly. This is the kind of affordable software that makes the Amiga an
>excellent general purpose computer. The "general purpose" user is not going
>to buy a $2000 drawing program or a $1500 music program. Deluxe Paint IV has
>excellent functionality for its price.
Adobe Illustrator which I have for both the Mac and the NeXT has an excellent
educational price. Canvas3.0 is relatively inexpensive. There are plenty of
inexpensive games, music programs( many from the same people as on the
Amiga) and paint programs for the Mac. This discussion is degenerating. Go
to a bookstore and look up The Mac Product Registry or something like
that. There's one for the Amiga as well.
philip
phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
Gerald G. Washington
>so that the resulting images can look good when laser printed or photo
>typeset? For all I know, all of the MAC paint programs handle structured
>graphics as well as bitmapped graphics, while none of the Amiga paint
>programs handle structured graphics.
>[rabble deleted]
Of what use are structured drawing programs over painting programs? I'm just
curious; I've only used one structured drawing program on the Amiga, and I did
not find it enjoyable.
-- Gerald
David Morgenstern
>Everything's cheaper. (About half as expensive, compared to the Mac
>stuff I've seen.) The companies have gotten the clue that we want value
>for the money, and we won't shell out even $150 for something unless it's
>bloody well worth it.
I think this additional cost of software is when the word
"business" is somehow attached to a machine. In 1984-1987, Mac
software was priced under packages for PCs. In the past few years,
with the acceptance of the Mac in business, the prices have risen.
I think it's that Market Posistioning thing...
daviD
--
***** David Morgenstern (a.k.a. BMUG CheerLeader) *****
* CIS: 72030,1607 AOL: daviD eM FAX: 510-849-9026 *
Daniel Barrett
>>Can you send data from a mathematics program directly into Photoshop
>>so it renders mathematical graphs?
In article <1992Mar5.0...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett) writes:
>Can you import structured graphics into any of the Amiga paint programs
>so that the resulting images can look good when laser printed or photo
>typeset?
Gee, I love being quoted out of context.
That has nothing to do with my point, which was (verbatim) "Power is
in the eye of the beholder." Different users have different needs, just like
different computers/programs have different advantages. Justin praised
Photoshop as being the best. I was merely pointing out some uses for
graphics programs that Photoshop is unlikely to support, and which are
available on the Amiga today.
People should buy computers that do what they want. I know what
I want, and there are only 2 computers that do it. The Amiga is one.
The other is too expensive. :-)
>[rabble deleted]
Gee Marc, why the potshot? Getting irritated that everybody flames
you? :-) I'll bet that if someone gave you a free Mac Quadra and $10,000
in software, you'd still hang around the Amiga groups and post negative
things just for fun.
Dan
David Tiberio
>In article <1992Mar3.1...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtib...@csws14.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>> And there are 2 386 BB, plus one more in development...
>
There is a small company that sells modified 286 BB's as 386s. Check
the classified ads in Amiga World.
>that has been bashed in .emulations repeatedly for being too little much too
>late, and for its lack of VGA support. Also, where did you get the information
It is too little too late from CBM.
--
David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3662 AMIGA DDD-MEN
"Why do we have to go and take the same each day. Life is it what it is."
People don't change. You just get to know them better. -DT
Liverpool, New York...soon to be in 3D...starting with Heid's
Gerald G. Washington
[about Amiga software cheaper than Mac]
>Do you think this is why many "big" developers have not supported the Amiga?
I think many have. These are not the developers of business software, but,
of course, if I wanted business software I'd buy an IBM-clone.
>It's quite possible that developers see the price of a A500 and conclude that
>since most of the Amiga owners out there don't pay for a lot in HW, they must
>not want to pay much in software. At such a low price a lot of people equate
>the A500 with the C64 which was mainly bought in the US for the pirated games.
No, this is not the reason. The reason less people buy Amiga software is that
less companies and businesses have Amigas. Home users of any system are going
to pirate software, but companies must purchases the packages.
>(Before anyone flames me about all the non-pirating things done on c64's, I'll
>just tell you that every single one of the ~50 C=64 owners I know back in High
>School had hundreds of pirated games. Everybody stole games like crazy back
>then)
There's no need for flames; your statement may well be correct. Of course,
the same may be said of IBM-clone owners and Mac owners. (Well, maybe not
Mac owners; I don't know if there are hundreds of games for the Mac.)
-- Gerald
Daniel J. McCoy
But DO take a look at those prices for the above software. Most Amiga owners
aren't that willing to pay that kind of money for software they only want to
use at home. Productivity software, as a whole, is more expensive but so far,
Amiga software priced in the above ranges are specilized (ie: 3D renderers).
Even ProPage and PageStream are less than $250 and both handle DTP well.
Not nearly up to snuff as QuarkXPress but there's enough Amiga owners and
Amiga based businesses using them.
Just for fun, I browsed through a MacConnection mail order catalog that was
sent to me. I know I'd be flat out broke if I had to spend that kinda of
money on the "basic" software I use on my Amiga (with some exceptions like
Microsoft Works). Then there's the hardware.
Everyone has their preferences. For me, I'd much rather take my Amiga to
work to replace the 386/33 with Windows or a Mac SI because the power I
desire, I haven't found except when I move over to the Suns in the lab.
I've spent a considerable sum to get what I've got on my Amiga but my
mouth stands wide open when I think of how much it would have cost me on
an IBM compatible or Mac. And it doesn't stop for any of us, does it?
There's always something new we can spend our money on! :).
>--
>*******************************************************************************
>* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh> *
>* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions. *
>*******************************************************************************
--
Daniel McCoy - I speak on my own behalf, not TRW.
mc...@mamacass.etdesg.trw.com or Daniel_...@cup.portal.com
Where am I and how did I get here?
Charles Wuethrich
>ger...@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>
>
>a paint program, instead preferring to stick with structure (or object)
>drawing programs.
(stuff deleted)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu
A word of praise for this sage man :-) He's found the grail of graphics :-) :-)
While I'm sure that Evan can perfectly manage to use his structured drawing tools,
I am not quite sure that they can be applied to all purposes. I, for one, am
working in graphics and image processing. I am afraid that in most cases I
cannot use structured drawing. There are many applications of structured drawing,
but we're not yet to the point that we can substitute all drawings with structured
ones (or all pictures with drawings, for that matter....).
I also wonder if Evan has done any serious use of image processing.
Cheers
Charles
Dariusz Bolski
>In article <1992Mar5.0...@osc.edu>, de...@kirk.tmc.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Im sorry, I just don't understand anything you just said after "I guess
>|> >you do".. could you rephrase? I just completely lost you there.
>|>
>|> Too much deleted, but I can try to recall what I meant. I meant that not
>|> having access to a coprocessor or expansion slots does not discredit AMAX
>|> in any way. If it was, then it would also discredit all machines which
>|> both without coprocessor (PCs, Macs others ) where never expanded with it,
>|> nor a user never put anything into the expansion slot.
>|> These machines are still useful and considered a perfectly valid platform.
>|> If it is so, so is AMAX. I hope this sounds better.
>|>
>
>it is a poor use of the Amigas abilities.
>
>What I meant about co-processors is that Apps which depend on
>MacOS to tell them that they have a coprocessor availiable will not
>think they have one. Even worse, apps which depend on the math libraries
>that are in ROM wont benefit, because the plus roms don't know about
>coprocessors. Apps wich use other means to determine things like that
>are annother story entirely.
>
>The slots were just a method for getting at your Amigas abilities, not
>necisities in and of themselves.
>
>But it does seem to be that the Plus roms limits enough that you'd be better
>of just using Amiga programs. I doubt that it could run (decently) anything
>that you could not get to run on an Amiga, straight. (except MacOS itself
>I suppose but that is a moot point) The best way to make me eat my words would
>be to provide an example of some app that runs on AMAX, well enough to be
>usefull, but that you CANNOT get on the Amiga (no AMAX)
Ha ha ha! I see your point! You actually think Amiga has all to offer what
Mac has? Brave statement. Even for Amiga oriented man.
In fact I could ADD one a very important point to your interesting reasoning
(which you somehow did not point out).
There is much more important feature of Amiga you loose if you start to
emulate Mac. This feature is Amigas ability to evolve with the user.
When you see someones Amiga you can almost immediately judge how good he is.
I say that your Amiga is always as good as good you are. You are slow?
Your Amiga will wait for you. You are fast? Your Amiga will wait for you too.
You do know a little? Your Amiga setup and usage of it will reflect that.
Lots of gadgets, requesters (OK, cancel) etc. You are an experienced user?
You will have links everywhere, Arexx interface and so on (opinions can vary).
How about Mac? You are slow? Your Mac will wait for you. You are fast?
You wait for your Mac. There are no shortcuts. (I see already these Mac
users jumping on me. Sorry folks. That is just what I hear from my Mac
friends plus my own experience. Of course many do not complain. Mostly these
who either ain't fast yet or would never admit that problem).
How about the progress? The methods of work of beginner should differ from
these of experienced user. Isn't it? (otherwise how you define who made
progress). You learn, you find your short paths. See people on Mac. Short
paths?
And a final comment to your point. If someone is using AMAX it usually means
one has a purpose to change Amiga to a Mac temporarily. Sometimes you cannot
to the other way. Example? A class of Macintosh usage/programming/Excel/what-
ever. You got to use Mac software even if you have equivalent on Amiga/PC/CoCo.
Because it is told so.
You can easily imagine other examples when even a dedicated Amiga user could
switch to other machine. (I switch to Sun when I need access to News :-)
BTW. Didn't we accidentaly agree again ;^)
>Of course, if yo do that I'll just claim that Macs are amazingly disgustingly
>rediculously stupedously dazzlingly wonderfull because of the Apps that run
>on them! :> (now where'd I put that bottle of flameburn lotion?)
Now. What do you expect me to say? :-)
Evan Torrie
>Of what use are structured drawing programs over painting programs?
Well, ever since the LaserWriter came out, I've almost never touched
a paint program, instead preferring to stick with structure (or object)
drawing programs.
You see, they give you this neat thing called resolution independence.
I can take my Canvas/MacDraw/Illustrator/Freehand files and print them
out on a 360 dpi StyleWriter, 300 dpi LaserWriter, or 2540 dpi Linotronic,
and they all come out at the full resolution of the device.
Of course, they also make paint programs look sick when it comes to
editing diagrams/drawings etc.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu
"I feel slimy already." - John Sununu, on being welcomed by journalists to
his new role at CNN's Crossfire.
Chung Lau
>
>Yes, I admit that the prices I give are high for drawing/music programs;
>they were meant to be. The point, quite simply, was not to give price
>estimates, but to point out the Mac software is overpriced. $230, for
>example, is not a low price.
But Canvas is not an entry-level structure-drawing program, it's
probably one of the best money can buy. You can buy a cheaper,
less capable program like SuperPaint 3.0. You get what you paid for.
BeagleWorks for example, is under $200, and is probably all you need
(Spreadsheet, Database, Word Processing, Painting,....)
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii
Internet: la...@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu
Steph...@asylum.flex.com ->OS/2!<-
Tim Devlin
>>In article <0AH...@irie.ais.org> cyt...@ais.org (Tim Devlin) writes:
>>
>>[ ]
>>
>>I am ignoring emulators for the most part. It seems silly to claim the Amiga
>>is better than a Mac because you can turn it into a fast low end Mac and run
>>most Mac programs. Same goes with the 386BB, although I know of no such
>>beast. Emulators are useful for the occasional program that you can't get on
>>your computer or as an interim solution while developers produce needed sw on
>>a new platform.
Prehaps this is the way YOU see them, but most of us who use them do NOT. I
use both A-Max II and my A228 BB everyday when there is some app. that is
only avaible for one of those platforms. I have NO need to go out and buy
an Amiga version of that software, when and if it comes out, when I already
have it running on the other.
>>
>>I don't wish to get into an analysis of emulators, but AMAX() is simply not
>>good enough for someone who wants certain progras on modern Mac's. It's
>>nothing more than a fast Mac+.
Ah!! So what you are saying, is that everyone out there who has a Mac +, Mac
Classic or any other low-end Mac has a totally useless computer, or at the
very lease one that is not "modern' enough for you. Im sure that those Mac
uses will be happy to hear that. Im also sorry, but for MY FEW Mac needs
A-Max II Is MORE then enougf Mac for me. and the new A386 BB give you
EVERYTHING a 386 PC cloan gives you, it is the same thing as haveing 2
entire computers in 1 box. This also may not be the way YOU like to see
things, but to quote you "Thats not somthing that is shared by your fellow
contrymen" I suppose you think adding UNIX to an A3000 is just a unix
emulator also.
>>
>>[ ]
>>
>>philip
>>phi...@utstat.toronto.edu
>>
>
>
> I agree with philip. It seems silly that a ZEOS or Compaq can run
>IBM software, or that a Mac II can run Mac Plus software! It is pure
>propoganda...just garbage.
Well said. Gee must be all that MS-DOS software that I run on my BB in
Super-VGA everyday, including Q-Modem which im using to compose this
message, are simply not good enough cuz its not running on a IBM PC at 33
mhz. The thing is, this guy dismisses these things, becuase it removes his
reason for prefering the Quarda over an A3000, or prehaps becuase he is one
of the few people out there that require some nitch software that you need
an uluta powered Mac to use...most people do not.
>
> And there are 2 386 BB, plus one more in development...
>--
> David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3662 AMIGA DDD-MEN
> "Why do we have to go and take the same each day. Life is it what it is."
> People don't change. You just get to know them better. -DT
> Liverpool, New York...soon to be in 3D...starting with Heid's
--
Internet/Bitnet: cyt...@irie.ais.org
CompuServe: 76217,1372 (via Internet) 76217...@compuserve.com
GEnie: T.Devlin2 BIX: Cython P-LINK: Opps! it died!
Evan Torrie
>I find it hard to believe that T2's graphic effects were not done on an SGI
>box. Did any of last year's '030 Macs have the horsepower, or did they leave
>them chugging away for hours at a time? Not ever having made a movie I have
>no clue.....
Most of the effects were done on an SGI, but the nuclear devastation
scene was apparently modelled and rendered on a bank of IIfx's. (And
yes, it took a long time!)
Gerald G. Washington
>ger...@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>
>>excellent general purpose computer. The "general purpose" user is not going
>>to buy a $2000 drawing program or a $1500 music program. Deluxe Paint IV has
>>excellent functionality for its price.
>
>can be bought around $230 mail order, nowhere near $1000, and it beats
>the pants off most Amy structure-drawing program you can name.
Yes, I admit that the prices I give are high for drawing/music programs;
they were meant to be. The point, quite simply, was not to give price
estimates, but to point out the Mac software is overpriced. $230, for
example, is not a low price.
I don't know if Canvas 3.0 beats the pants off of most Amiga structured
drawing programs. First, I don't use most Amiga structured drawing programs.
(I don't use any, in fact.) Second, I know of no Amiga programs with pants.
=)
-- Gerald
Thomas VanNess Leavitt
What does that prove?
A $100 program isn't really comprable to a $500... they have completely
different capabilities and are marketed to completely different markets.
Thom
~.
ftp Amiga Manager
I find it easier to create and edit figures with a structured drawing
program than with a bitmap type painting program. They are also usually
better at output device independence. Each has their place though. The
painting programs are generally better suited to artwork, and the drawing
programs to figures and illustrations, IMHO.
I have also only tried one Amiga drawing program (ProDraw 2.0) and did not
find it enjoyable either. Has anyone tried ProVector or know of an
Amiga drawing package comparable to say, MacDraw Pro, Illustrator, or
Freehand? (I don't think so, but ya never know.)
--
// uhunix amiga archive | am...@ftp.hawaii.edu | ftp: ftp.hawaii.edu
\X/ my alter ego account | ba...@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu | 128.171.7.7
Gerald G. Washington
>>>for this, the ROMs coudl be in software. But that code has got to be
>>>somewhere!
>>
>>Sure you can do it in software. There is a public domain program available
>>which copies the ROMs to disk. The ROM file can then be loaded into RAM for
>>faster access.
>>
> It is certainly possible but legally speaking (is that a word?) you are
>breaking the law if you use the ROM file without purchasing the
>Apple roms.
Yes, but the ROM-copier works just fine with purchased ROMs.
-- Gerald
Chung Lau
>joh...@rpi.edu writes:
>>You do need the contence of those ROMs. You can't do it in software
>>because Apple will sue you (Apple has this lawsuit thing...). If it wasn't
>>for this, the ROMs coudl be in software. But that code has got to be
>>somewhere!
>
>Sure you can do it in software. There is a public domain program available
>which copies the ROMs to disk. The ROM file can then be loaded into RAM for
>faster access.
>
It is certainly possible but legally speaking (is that a word?) you are
breaking the law if you use the ROM file without purchasing the
Apple roms.
Michael V. Hoffman
to find that the arguement was pretty much invaild. This I guess mac user.
Say that with the mac + roms its not possible to have more than 4 mb of
memory, the 128k roms do not acknowlege the existence of my FPU or '030.
Well then how is it possible that I am using an A3000 under Amax that
has acess to 6mb of memory, and when I run Speedometer it knows I have
an '030 and an FPU and asks if I want to test the FPU? Why is it that
my computer runs 3 times faster than an LC under Mac emulation. why is
it that my monitor can support a resolution of 672x460 under mac emulation?
Are these bugs? I am baffled give me some answers. In any event, you
shouln't pass judgement on a machine you have no idea about. Or have
used or tested under the given conditions. Get a life, you paid too much
for your mac and your wondering why everyone else didn't and think there
is something wrong with them.
Mike
Rick Kelly
>joh...@rpi.edu writes:
>>You do need the contence of those ROMs. You can't do it in software
>>because Apple will sue you (Apple has this lawsuit thing...). If it wasn't
>>for this, the ROMs coudl be in software. But that code has got to be
>>somewhere!
>
>Sure you can do it in software. There is a public domain program available
>which copies the ROMs to disk. The ROM file can then be loaded into RAM for
>faster access.
However, that is potentially illegal.
--
Rick Kelly Rick's Amiga Framingham, Mass.
think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
Kent Dalton
Dan> That has nothing to do with my point, which was (verbatim) "Power is
Dan> in the eye of the beholder."
I couldn't agree more completely, Dan, Eye of the Beholder was much
better than either Dungeon Master or Chaos Strikes Back. FTL has a lot
of catching up to do, especially with Eye of the Beholder II due out
soon!
Dan> Gee, I love being quoted out of context.
Was it good for you too? :^)
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton * EMail: Kent....@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics * */
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A * */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 * (303) 223-5100 X-319 */
/**************************************************************************/
Somewhere in suburban Honolulu, an unemployed bellhop is whipping up
a batch of illegal psilocybin chop suey!!
Chung Lau
>excellent general purpose computer. The "general purpose" user is not going
>to buy a $2000 drawing program or a $1500 music program. Deluxe Paint IV has
>excellent functionality for its price.
You are getting slight exagerated here. Canvas 3.0, for example,
can be bought around $230 mail order, nowhere near $1000, and it beats
the pants off most Amy structure-drawing program you can name.
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Evan Torrie
>This is one fundamental reason why it's nice to be an Amiga owner.
>Everything's cheaper. (About half as expensive, compared to the Mac
>stuff I've seen.) The companies have gotten the clue that we want value
>for the money, and we won't shell out even $150 for something unless it's
>bloody well worth it.
The same type of packages exist for the Mac (e.g. WriteNow, Expert
Colour Paint, Michael's Draw, SuperPaint 3, Nisus Compact). All of
these are around or under the $150 mark, but they don't get the
exposure which the bigger, more expensive (and hence more advertised)
products receive.
For anyone who buys a low-end Mac, I'd recommend ClarisWorks ($149
street price) as being practically all they need (word processor,
spreadsheet, database, graphics, comms package all in one).
Daniel Norman Johnson
|>
|> I drew so subtle reasoning that it would take to much to prove its correctness.
|> To save bandwith from lots of misunderstandings (as unfortunately followed)
|> I rather take it back.
|>
ok, although I AM interested in knowing what you are saying. But if you don't
want to waste bandwith. Fine. Hrumph :P
[ more stuff deleted for space. Besides, it was just agreement plus the
thing that he is just about to clarify... ]
Of course, if yo do that I'll just claim that Macs are amazingly disgustingly
rediculously stupedously dazzlingly wonderfull because of the Apps that run
on them! :> (now where'd I put that bottle of flameburn lotion?)
|>
|> Dariusz Bolski
|>
--
- Dan Johnson
This signature wanted to dabble in Realism, but failed...
Marc N Barrett
>bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett) writes:
>> Can you import structured graphics into any of the Amiga paint programs
>>so that the resulting images can look good when laser printed or photo
>>typeset? For all I know, all of the MAC paint programs handle structured
>>graphics as well as bitmapped graphics, while none of the Amiga paint
>>programs handle structured graphics.
>>[rabble deleted]
>
>Of what use are structured drawing programs over painting programs? I'm just
>curious; I've only used one structured drawing program on the Amiga, and I did
>not find it enjoyable.
I wasn't talking about straight structured drawing programs; I WAS talking
about paint programs. This is the nice thing about Macintosh paint programs:
they can give you the best of both worlds. They can import and use
structured objects, keeping them as structured objects or converting them
to bitmapped objects. Or they can work like a straight Amiga-type paint
programs, and work with bitmaps. You absolutely cannot get this kind of
functionality from an Amiga paint program.
>
>-- Gerald
Paul Theodoropoulos
Sell your Amiga, Marc. Sell your Amiga stocks.
Please.
--
paul theodoropoulos dam...@netcom.COM
Daniel Barrett
>It would not really take much for me to completely change my tune.
>The reason that I have been saying the same things over and over is
>because nothing ever changes....
If nothing has changed, why keep repeating it? I mean, we heard
you the last time.
>For instance, my negative postings about Commodore's investments in R&D
>would cease if the investments in R&D were raised....
But then you'd find something else to complain about. You always
do.
In the last 3-4 years that you've been complaining in public, have
you ever mentioned a reason why you keep your Amiga at all? You don't
like the company, you don't like the hardware, you don't like the OS, you
don't like the selection of application software... what's left?
I challenge you to post an article detailing why you *like* the
Amiga. Barring that, how about an article explaining why you haven't
switched to another computer already?!? Nobody complains more than you, and
yet you still use the Amiga. Why??
I give this "challenge" a 75% chance of being ignored.
Marc N Barrett
> In the last 3-4 years that you've been complaining in public, have
>you ever mentioned a reason why you keep your Amiga at all? You don't
>like the company, you don't like the hardware, you don't like the OS, you
>don't like the selection of application software... what's left?
>
> I challenge you to post an article detailing why you *like* the
>Amiga. Barring that, how about an article explaining why you haven't
>switched to another computer already?!? Nobody complains more than you, and
>yet you still use the Amiga. Why??
I am not satisfied with anything, really. All computers are imperfect
and unacceptable to me. But this is an Amiga newsgroup, so I do not voice
my oppinions about, say DEC systems here. I have expressed oppinions about
other systems, though; sometimes with a one-sentence remark in my
signature, other times with an occasional posting in a non-Amiga newsgroup.
As for why I still own an Amiga, I can afford nothing else. Upon
graduation and upon getting a full-time job, I will probably end up selling
my A500 and getting a PC clone, mostly because PC clones are the
unfortunate mediocre standard, and it would be difficult to get a real
computing-related job without experience with Intel-based machines.
Finally, you questioned why I almost never post pro-Amiga postings.
The reasons is because I have liked Amigas in the past, but do not like
them much anymore. Commodore's near total lack of progress with the
machine has taken its toll, and I consider the machine to be worthless
anymore as a system for defining the cutting edge of technologies, and
as a respected part of the computer industry.
> //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
>| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 -- bar...@cs.umass.edu |
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
---
| Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Only in the Big 8 can a team beat three top-25 teams, including
2 in the top 5, and finish near last in the conference." -- me
Paul Theodoropoulos
>the people running the company consistantly do whatever they can to
>make the Amiga's future as bleak as they can possibly make it.
So what is accomplished by continually bitching about what is wrong
with C=? Do you honestly believe that Irving Gould is sitting in his
plush offices, reading csa.advocacy, and when he reads your deeply,
deeply wise ruminations on the state of his company, he says to himself "Whoa.
wait a minute! This kid is right!! We're blowing it Mehdi! My God! What a
fool i've been!"
i think not.
> For instance, my negative postings about Commodore's investments in R&D
>would cease if the investments in R&D were raised. By the same token, my
>rantings about bugs and other problems with the Amiga's OS would cease if
>these problems were fixed. Silencing the messenger would not get rid of the
>problems...
Yes, Marc. But picture this: *Most* of us here in .advocacy *enjoy* using
our Amigas. That's why we stick with them. We *know* that the machine and
OS have shortcomings. We also know that those shortcomings are not unique
to the Amiga. Macs have shortcomings. IBM/clones have shortcomings. hell,
Suns, NeXTs, HPs, and Crays have shortcomings. That doesn't mean that those
machines are utter crap.
Yet you constantly and consistently work hard to find the most bizarre
and arcane things to whine about concerning the Amiga. And i simply
cannot recall the last time you had anything positive to say about the
Amiga. "NOTHING is right with the Amiga" is the message we get from you.
And that message is erroneous. There is much that is *right* about the
Amiga. There is much that is *excellent* about the Amiga.
I'm sure you picture yourself as the intrepid voice of reason, informing
us that we are all doomed for liking our Amigas. And that if you were to
observe something positive about the Amiga, it would be far too damaging
to post those observations, as it might needlessly encourage us, which
would be very bad since The Sky Is Falling.
You've been predicting the imminent demise of C= and Amiga for years now.
Someday, you may be right - The Amiga will be obsolete. I'm sure you'll
do a silent little dance on it's grave, since you will have finally been
"proved" right. I'm sure you'll gleefully exclaim "i told you so".
In the meantime, you are missing out on the enjoyment of what we have
_now_. Which is why i implore you:
Please sell your Amiga, Marc.
Please.
(and a note for those contemplating sending me email, to "inform" me
that this thread would best be taken up with Marc via email, rather than
here in .advocacy: Wrong. This is *advocacy*. Marc is an Amiga *detractor*.
When i counter his posts, i am *advocating*. My responses to Marc belong
here more than Marc's posts do, if one understands the meaning of advocacy.)
--
paul theodoropoulos dam...@netcom.COM
cha...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
I started this thread, to my dismay. Why is it SOOoo hard for you guys
to simply read a Subject heading. "Lets get focused now...." and you all
ramble about the philosophy of emulation and the price/performance ratings
of completely different software packages ussually know nothing about the
competing products. So "LETS GET FOCUSED NOW...."
Remember, this thread was about the 3000 and QUADRA. Here are the original
points:
1) Quadra is much slower than is should be for an 040. A 3000 blows it away
on OS response and with an 040 completely destroys the speed appearance.
2) The Quadra cant multitask for crap with its almight System 7. Simply
holding down the button will freeze a QuickTime animation!!! You cant get
much worse multitasking than that.
3) Couldnt run a program and an animation at the same time. "Not enough
memory" -- 4 megs was not enough. But what about the supposed vm? I never
really got a chance to test the multitasking because of how much memory
every single program uses. (could only do 3 anims -- and they SLOWED down).
4) Couldnt find any 24 bit graphics (I sure hope those anims wernt 24 bit).
But running 8 bit anims was not 30 fps by any means -- and they were in a
tiny window. Playing 2 was unbelievably slow. I dont know weather this
slow anim test is an OS problem or graphics problem (but the graphics
CERTAINTLY can multitask). I wish I could have seen the speed of a 24 bit
anim (probably couldnt have loaded into mem anyway).
- Thats good enough to get us focused again. And here is a point to refute.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH SOFTWARE X IS BETTER THAN Y, OR HARDWARE, OR ANYTHING
It takes ALOT of pluses to equal the increased productivity gained from
true multitaskin (amiga)! Even if the mac could do things better it would
have to be _alot_ better to bridge the multitasking production gap.
ie. I can do on my 3000 in a half hour what it takes at least an hour to
do on a high end mac. And there is _nothing_ I ve ever need to do that
I couldnt do on my Amiga but could on a mac :) So why is a mac better?
Ciao...
--
WOW! I can use a toaster with my MAC/IBM. Thats great!
"See, I told you the Toaster was compatable...ha!"
Sorta like buying a "ferrari box" and tying your Yugo to it and saying
"I told you it just needed a little work...ha!"
Gerald (Jerry) KUCH
[ Marc Barret's "we all know too well" snivelling about Commodore's brain
damaged management and pitifully small R&D expenditures deleted ]
>
> But then you'd find something else to complain about. You always
>do.
This he probably will. The Battle of the Barretts begins in earnest...
>
> In the last 3-4 years that you've been complaining in public, have
>you ever mentioned a reason why you keep your Amiga at all? You don't
>like the company, you don't like the hardware, you don't like the OS, you
>don't like the selection of application software... what's left?
>
Good question...good question.
> I challenge you to post an article detailing why you *like* the
>Amiga. Barring that, how about an article explaining why you haven't
>switched to another computer already?!? Nobody complains more than you, and
>yet you still use the Amiga. Why??
>
> I give this "challenge" a 75% chance of being ignored.
Most probable. You know what he'll say though. Right after a tirade about
how wonderfully inexpensive 386/486 clones have become and how the price-
performance is stellar and how they're flying off the shelves and they're
so cheap you can't walk down the street without dropping some spare change
and buying one by accident he'll give you a sob story about how Commodore
suckered him into buuying that machine, orphaned him and has now left him
far too poor to jump ship to a clone or Mac box and thus he is left wailing
in misery among the motley ranks of the Amiga users.
I wonder if WHINEMONGER or BITCHANDMOANMONGER will be able to support full
Barrett emulation in their next releases... :-)
>
> Dan
>
> //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
>| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 -- bar...@cs.umass.edu |
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
--
J. Kuch (je...@cs.mcgill.ca) | Ronald McDonald for President, An Honest Clown
"Hey, Mr. Donut Head Man...who's trying to kill you?" -- Garth Algar
"I don't know...but they better not...AAAAHHH!! AARRHHHH!! AAAGHH!!"
"Arrrghhh...This Is Bad! I'm not happy!" -- Mr. Donut Head Man
Daniel Barrett
[responding to my "challenge" to state why he owns an Amiga at all, if he
seems to hate everything about it]
Marc, thanks for taking the time to answer. Years ago, when people
asked you these things, you didn't respond at all. I think I understand
better now just where you are coming from.
> I am not satisfied with anything, really. All computers are imperfect
>and unacceptable to me. But this is an Amiga newsgroup, so I do not voice
>my oppinions about, say DEC systems here. I have expressed oppinions about
>other systems, though; sometimes with a one-sentence remark in my
>signature...
Ah yes. You usually do quote yourself in your signature. :-)
Aren't people suppose to quote other people, though? Or only dead people, or
something like that? :-)
> Finally, you questioned why I almost never post pro-Amiga postings.
>The reasons is because I have liked Amigas in the past, but do not like
>them much anymore.... I consider the machine to be worthless
>anymore as a system for defining the cutting edge of technologies...
Well, OK. You are entitled to your opinion, certainly. I don't
agree with it at all, but there's no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to
opinions. I hope you find a computer someday that makes you happy.
While you're on the subject though, and responding so politely and
non-flamingly to questions in a public forum, let me ask one more. Now that
you have made your feelings about the Amiga known, and your name (and even
your initials) are famous in c.s.a.advocacy and beyond, you continue to post
the same negative opinions time and time again. So I ask: why? We've all
heard it by now. Are you doing this for anybody else's benefit? Are you
trying to turn off future Amiga buyers, or just letting off steam?
In short: what public need are you trying to serve by complaining
repeatedly in this public forum?
Dan
Peter Kerney
Misc garbage deleted.
> As for why I still own an Amiga, I can afford nothing else. Upon
> graduation and upon getting a full-time job, I will probably end up selling
> my A500 and getting a PC clone, mostly because PC clones are the
> unfortunate mediocre standard, and it would be difficult to get a real
> computing-related job without experience with Intel-based machines.
>
More garbage deleted.
NOTE: Real computers have nothing to do with Intel processors !!!!!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kerney. Silicon Graphics, Sydney, Australia. (pet...@syd.sgi.oz.au)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hurley
> >>Please.
> >
> >If you have to flame someone, it's usually best to choose a post that deserv
> >it. If you disagree with the facts of a post, that's fine, flame. If
> >you're flaming simply because you dislike the tone of a post, whice seems to
> >be the case here, you should probably think twice...
>
> How long have you been reading the comp.sys.amiga groups, anyway? I'd
> bet that Paul thought twice. In fact, like the rest of us, he's probably
> thought several hundred times - once, at least, for every Marc Barrett
> Commodore-bashing posting. If Marc had a different tune, maybe we'd
> think better of his negative postings (hell, I *know* we would), but
> when you've heard the same thing over and over again for three years,
> well, all I have to say is "Marc, sell your Amiga. Please."
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Farren - no longer employed by Commodore. Still only my opinions,
> and not those of any organization.
Marc, Sell your Amiga, Please.
Please.
Paul Theodoropoulos
>graduation and upon getting a full-time job, I will probably end up selling
>my A500 and getting a PC clone, mostly because PC clones are the
>unfortunate mediocre standard, and it would be difficult to get a real
>computing-related job without experience with Intel-based machines.
i was going to suggest that if you sold your commodore stocks as
well as your 500, you'd probably have enough to buy a cheap clone.
however, i realized that you in all likelyhood own only one share
of commodore stock, the purpose of course being to get the quarterly
reports and annual statement - so selling that one stock would only
give you an extra +/- $15 at present.
then i was going to suggest that you could buy one of those "build
it yourself" PC clone kits, that cost a few hundred less than even
a mailorder clone. Hey, that would certainly be within your budget
after selling your 500.
but then i remembered that post from some time ago about how
horrible the A3000 physical architecture was, because it took
you most of the afternoon to unscrew five screws to get to the
ZIP sockets. So i realized that you'd never be able to actually
put together a kit consisting of a motherboard, a power supply,
a case, and an expansion card for a harddrive.
then i thought to myself, hey - this guy seems sharp enough,
maybe he's a software kind of guy. Maybe he's written a shareware
program or two for the Amiga that could bring in a few extra bucks -
maybe enough to bridge that gap to buying a beeeeeyutiful clone.
but then i checked all the archives on all the networks, and
i couldn't find a single software contribution from a Marc Barrett.
So there were no ways besides *charity* that i could help Marc
buy that badly needed clone.
so i guess we're back where we started. Marc is still stuck with
that horrible, ugly, buggy, stupid, badly designed, miserable
piece-of-shit Amiga 500.
I'm curious Marc, just what exactly do you *DO* with your Amiga?
you so despise it, and you certainly have access to pretty and
yummy Quadras and Macs and 486's and Unix boxes over in the old
computer sciences labs. What is there that you *DO* on your
Amiga that you couldn't do in the lab? Write term papers?
An all-in-one word processor can do that for under $200. you
could certainly get that much if you sold your A500....
...And i really, really truely, in my heart-of-hearts, wish you
would sell it.
Marc N Barrett
> While you're on the subject though, and responding so politely and
>non-flamingly to questions in a public forum, let me ask one more. Now that
>you have made your feelings about the Amiga known, and your name (and even
>your initials) are famous in c.s.a.advocacy and beyond, you continue to post
>the same negative opinions time and time again. So I ask: why? We've all
>heard it by now. Are you doing this for anybody else's benefit? Are you
>trying to turn off future Amiga buyers, or just letting off steam?
Mostly just letting off steam. For instance, the recent posting about
the "almost 25%" drop in R&D spending by Commodore was triggered by a
posting by someone (I forget who) last fall. You probably remember a few
months ago when I posted a similar message, detailing a 10% drop in R&D
for the first quarter. Someone made a remark saying that he fully expected
R&D spending for the second quarter to be back up to normal, erasing the
10% drop for the first quarter. This latest message was basically an
attempt to show that this person was wrong, and that the R&D spending for the
second quarter dropped even more.
It's usually things like this that trigger the negative messages from me.
Someone will post a message that is unrealistic about the future of the
Amiga, and my impulse is to show why they are unrealistic. The recent
flurry of messages from people detailing exactly what features new Amigas
should have comes to mind. I haven't replied to any of the messages in
these particular threads, but if I did I would probably point out that
the R&D funding is too low for people to expect very many new systems from
Commodore, or very many innovative improvements on the systems that are
produced.
I guess, in a nutshell, my messages are an attempt to induce realism
on the discussions here, but I often go too far and post messages that are
overwhlemingly negative and caustic.
> //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
>| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 -- bar...@cs.umass.edu |
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
---
| Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
Do not write in this space. For office use only.
Dave Haynie
>Apple has been preparing developers for an 040 and full 32-bit clean operations
>for THREE YEARS now, so no developer has any excuse, and Apple does not
>deserve any blame.
Commodore-Amiga has been preparing developers for 32-bit clean operation for
seven or more years, and they're still not perfect. One of the problems Apple
is going though now is that they're kind of dropping in all of this at once.
System 7 was the first OS that would require full 32-bit addressing, though few
Macs cared much about it (eg, you only see half the coding problems when you
stop wrapping to 24-bits of address -- the rest of them kick in when you put
memory outside of that 24-bit space). The 68040 adds in a few more places a
program can trip; things like self modifying code (or less obvious space
translations) could sometimes get lucky on the '020 or '030, they never do on
the '040. Many bugs, things like references to non-existant memory, could
simply be trapped on the '030 (not sure Apple did this, but it's easy to do),
these would cause real problems on the '040. Going to both 32-bit addressing
and '040 in a short period of time will certainly make the Quadra look worse
than it might have; it's not really the fault of the Quadra or Apple, it just
takes awhile, and in some cases pressure, for the developers to catch up.
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh BIX: hazy
"I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused" - Elvis Costello