From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: PC vs AmigaPlay it again Sam)
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:34:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.024821.29889@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ccb8m@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy) writes:

[ ]
>>
>>You don't do the number crunching on your local system. You do it on things
>>which are 10 times faster. The 486 is hardly a replacement for a good 
>>workstation.
>
>Err, the person asked specifically whether to buy an Intel PC or
>Amiga upon entering a doctoral program in math.  Sorry, I thought
>the above intro; "picking an Amiga or an Intel Clone" pretty much 
>excluded PA-RISC, MIPS, etc...

You should try following a thread. I, and a few others, pointed out that
it was important to consider communications' software (and an X implementation)
in order to  run the jobs remotely. The issue wasn't one of buying a
RISC workstation. It was making use of resources in a productive way. This
is something PC's don't have a monopoly on.
>
>>>
>>>If you want to do some dazzling presentations, would like to be
>>>running something in conjunction with your math programs, or
>>>want to do some memory intensive stuff, go with a motorola
>>>based Amiga.
>>
>>Whatever...
>
>Per your above lack of attention, I'd suggest getting a clue.

A clue re what? I'd strongly suggest you learn to read threads. The poster
asked a question. I and many others answered him. Not everyone had the same
opinions of course. However I somehow suspect that the p[erson who should get
a clue re someone going into a doctoral program in math is you.
>
>>>
>>>Bottom line - software and compatibility at school.
>>
>>To a point.
>>>
>>>The Intel box has tons of stuff (Mathematica, Maple, Math CAD, etc)
>>>Most educational institutions use Messy Dog machines + WordPerfect.
>>>Most journal submissions require WordPerfect (unfortunately) format,
>>>tho many will accept other text formats w/ conversion fees & delay
>>>to print.  The Amiga can be used in this scenario, it just requires
>>>more work on the part of the user to interface with a Messy Dog
>>>mindset.  (Please don't yowl about MS-DOS = Messy Dog.  It was a
>>>wonderful accomplishment in 1980, its just a pity that MS hasn't
>>>improved upon it.)
>>
>>Most journal submissions do no insist on Wordperfect. I don't know of any 
>>that do. Maple is on the Amiga. Mathematica runs better on workstations
>>than via bank switching. In any case Maple is every bit as good. MathCad
>>is not to be taken seriously.
>
>Umm Mathematica/Maple are aimed at an entirely different user than
>MathCAD.  (Symbolic theory -vs- applied math)  In what context is
>an engineering program such as MathCAD not to be taken seriously?

Have you even used MathCad? It contains some numerical programs (which don't 
compare to those found in Numerical Recipes) and a subset of Maple.
What's this nonsense re symbolic theory vs. applied math. Maple, Mathematica
and many other symbolic algebra programs are used by applied mathematicians
everyday. As far as engineering goes, I've already said that the Numerical
Recipes( Press et al) contain all the algorithmns that one needs. So what if
MathCad has it all packaged in neat little packets. I've owned and not used
the program for years( and I am an engineer). 
>
>>>
>>>If you don't want to deal with interoperability issues, and you
>>>want extensive software and support go with the Intel box.  In
>>>your case of running math programs it will be the best choice.
>>
>>I simply don't agree. Mathematical journals prefer TeX documents, if anything.
>>Please keep in mind that it's the content not the look that matters. A hand
>>written document would do if it was a substantial result. The Intel boxes
>
>See my conversion fee remark above.  No journal accepts hand written
>submissions, no matter how "good" they are.

No journal forces people to submit articles in WordPerfect format, at least
not in the sciences and certainly not in the journals I publish in. You don't
know what you are talking about.
 
My example of a handwritten article was an extreme case. I personally know of 
someone who did submit a superb article that way. Editors are not fools. They
aren't going to turn away an exceptional article because of wordprocessing.
Mind you, most articles are not exceptional and tend to extend in small ways
known results. There's nothing wrong with that. It's the way Science proceeds.
Not everyone is a Smoluchowski.
>
>>do not really have the software. They are still hounded by the 640k issue.
>
>You really haven't done much 32 bit code development, have you :)  I've
>worked in CFD for the last 3 years and we didn't have a market for
>the Motorola based PC's  (Mac, Amiga, etc...)  Also, benchmarking the
>3D flow solver, placed a 50MHz 486DX 11% slower than a Sun accelerated
>4/260 deskside unit.  Of course the 486 didn't have any OS overhead :)

I'm not a programmer. I'm an applied mathematician. I'll use whatever tools
suit me best. The only reason I can see for getting a 486 (which I have) is
Scientific Word and Mixed up Mother Goose.
 
As far as using PharLap extenders, etc...that may be fine for a few programs.
It just goes to show how weak the PC OS is that people have to resort to
them. A good example is S+ on the PC. Pretty nice program, but misses many
of the features found on NeXT's, Sun's, etc...
 
I have nothing against the 486. I do have something against DOS, Windows
and ISA.

[ ]
 
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu