HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:09:29 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1993Jan12.200817.1061@msi.com> bill@west.msi.com writes:
>1) Device Independant Graphics

That is #1, yes, I'll give you that.  Not easily possible on the
Amiga, though RTG will give us 99% of its functionality.

>2) Device Independant Sound (including the PC speaker)

#2, and this wouldn't be hard to do, though the use is currently up in
the air.  You may see something like this once C='s DSP is released.

>3) Device Independant Printing

A function of device-independant graphics, so this isn't really a
number.

>4) Running Lotus 1-2-3 and Lotus Ami Pro (a spreadsheet and WP)

Applications don't validate an operating system.

>5) Running a lot of other lot of other software at various video
>resolutions (1024x768, 1280x1024, 800x600, 640x480) at various color
>depths (24bit, 16bit, 8bit) by virtue of point #1 (DIG).

RTG would easily give us that.

>NO WAY could YOUR Amiga do that (in its present setup)!

Wanna bet?  :)  Oh, you mean we have to run AmigaDOS.  Oh, I suppose.  :)

Greg

--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Our father, who art in Iowa, Hollow be thy head, Thy ideas run    :)
(:  Thy will be done, At Commodore as it is at Apple"  -Dan Barrett   :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: () :) :) :) Wubba, the Dark Angel :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: lindblad@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jarkko Lindblad)
Subject: Re: Advocacy? What do you want for the Amiga?
Organization: University of Helsinki
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:21:54 GMT

Marc N. Barrett (barrett@iastate.edu) wrote:

>    That's a very good idea.  I don't really care who Commodore has develop the
> package, as long as the package is done well.  And you are right that it is
> better for Commodore to subcontract the writing of the software to a third-
> party than to do it themselves.  I think it can be argued that one of the 
> reasons why the first incarnation of AmigaVision was halfway good was because
> it was done by a third-party and not by Commodore.

Yes. It does not matter what Commodore does, it sucks anyways.
Commodore can't do anything right, their programmers suck suck suck. I
just wish Commodore would had let thrid party to develope Amiga 3000
and 4000 for them. Also the operating system should have done by some
third party - the best choise would have been Apple, heck they should
have bought the right to use Mac's OS in Amiga's! And Microsoft Basic
should be put back in all Amiga packages.

-- 
Jarkko Lindblad         | sleep my friend and you will see
lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi | that dream is my reality
------------------------| they keep me locked up in this cage
          - MetallicA - | can't they see it's why my brain say rage
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: papresco@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: HELP--AMIGA OR IBM PC CLONE?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:31:02 GMT

>Yet 95% run Dos or Windows.

I never claimed there didn't exist DOS-lemmings.  I just said because
YOU or I own a PC doesn't mean we must be confined to DOS or Windows.
In fact, many, many Amiga users own a DOS machine and an Amiga.  Why
not have an OS/2 machine instead...it saves money.

>>All Amiga users use some form of Zorro bus.  PC users can choose one of
>>VESA,EISA, ISA, MCA, PCI and any combination of them!
>
>You see this as an advantage?  You have a multitude of different 
>standards and yet parade it as a strength.  

Differnt buses for different things.  ISA is low end and backwards
compatible.  EISA is fast, MCA is faster, VESA is fast for the single
user, PCMIA is good for laptops and large amounts of data.

>Which all share the same common instructions.  You have a choice of
>manufacturers yet the end result is the same "stifling sameness".

How much assembly programming do people do these days?  Who cares what
the instructions are...I program C for portability.  68000C is the same
as any other C.

But you do have more speed options, more power management options and
more backwards compatibility options with multiple vendors.

Cyrix makes 486ish chips that work in 386 motherboards
AMD makes faster 386s
Cyrix makes 40Mhz 486s etc. etc.
A plethora of options.
 

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: ccb8m@onyx.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy)
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:31:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.215326.20302@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Skip Sauls (skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Okay, the Orchid S3 based Farenheit board is $290 in Computer Shopper and
>: I've heard that the UltraSound is around $130.  Add that to the price of
>: the Gateway 4SX-25 and you're price is over $1900.  Sort of takes you out
>: of A1200 territory, doesn't it?
>:
>
>Really?  What does an A1200 cost, with a big hard drive, nice monitor, and
>32-voice 16-bit digital sound?

Well, I paid $1500 for an A1200 with an 80Meg HD and a 16" Princeton Graphics 
UltraSync monitor.   A bit pricey compared to a 486SX maybe, but its got
the tightly integrated graphics subsystem, full 32bit arch. PCMCIA r2.0 and
"adequate" sound.  (Compared to the above system)

I also hooked up a SOTA full page display monitor (monochrome) and turned on 
640x960.  Whew!  it looks really, really nice.  Eat yer heart out A2024 :)

Charles C. Bundy IV
ccb8m@virginia.edu

P.S.  I've been using viewtek v1.03 to view 256 color pics.  It is a great
      viewer!  And it works with ECS, too!  Check aminet...
From: jprad@faatcrl.faa.gov (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:14:59 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Pomona, NJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: faatcrl.faa.gov

wsc1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William S Chou) writes:

>This is a futile argument since Dale Luck who designed the original
>Amiga gfx chips was also the designer of the Atari chips.  So the
>don't you think it feasible that the Atari 400 chips may have some of the
>capabilities of the Amiga?  On the other hand, trying to add Amiga screens
>to generic dos boxes would be damn near impossible.

  Aside from it being Jay Miner, not Dale, nothing's impossible, just a tad
impractical... ;-)

>Boing was a trivial example of what the amiga chipset could do.
>I think there was also a C64 version of boing!, but I think CGA Boing! was
>out of the question way back when.  8)

  The point of Boing! was that it required a trivial amount of cpu time to
accomplish movement, the other incarnations on other platforms had to use
every ounce of processor muscle to do the same thing.

  -jack-
From: dmkasten@redorc.chi.il.us (Bowie Poag)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Truth about Iowa.....
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:46:12 CST
Organization: Red Oracle Bbs/Network

>
>Iowa is a basket case in the United States -- it's full of cornfields, and
>looked down on as a place full of yokel farmers and -cornfields- without
>much culture, interesting things to see, or intelligence..... [Iowa's part
>of the "bread basket"] There are lots of jokes about there being nothing of
>interest between the east and west coast of the US -- it's a 6 hour
>airplane flight, over a lot of -boring-, flat, -cornfield- landscape.  It's
>less tedious than -driving across- the midwest (I've never drived across
>Iowa.  I;ve driven for 9 hours across Kansas, I've driven across Texas..
>Iowa's merely further north.  It's -boring-... the same landscape without
>change for hours....
>
>
>-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

Try driving through Indiana..If youre not admiring the beauty of Indiana's
post-nuclear ghost towns, its CORN, CORN AND MORE CORN as far as the eye can
see. At least in Iowa they dont refer to computers as "them new-fangled picture
machines."



        +-----------------------------------------------------------+
        |o|              I think, therefore I Amiga.              |=|
        +-----------------------------------------------------------+
        | Douglas Michael Kasten (DMK) | Amiga 2000HD/5 with a tiny |
        |  dmkasten@redorc.chi.il.us   | little 21" Toshiba monitor.|
        +------------------------------+----------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Make WorkBench A WORK Bench!!!
From: CSC9241727H@LUST.LATROBE.EDU.AU (KOUKOULAS,Steven)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:45:14 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24


	Most utilities made for the Amiga lately all work on WB2.x perfect,
using the gui as it was meant to be. But why is it that all the big gun
software, open their own screens for use?

	The only program I am impressed with to date is Final Copy II, since
it gives you a choice of opening a custom screen or WB screen. Using the Wb
screen and rescaling, I learn to appreciate having a multi-tasking system.

	If the workbecnh is there, then use it. Since the new AGA chipset has
been introduced, giving a large amount of colors in all resolutions, wouldn't
it be cool to have DpaintAGA opening it's own little window on the side and
having ADPro somewhere else, all on the same WB screen. It'd give the Amiga
a much more appealing environment to work in.

	I have a 3000 and love multitasking up to ten programs at once but
hate having to switch between screens to get somewhere. It defeats the purpose.


	If I am mistaken anywhere in this posting, tell me about it. I've only
had the 3000 for a year. Too bad there's no AGA for it though...

Steve, Cool Cat...

			"AGA, THE ONLY WAY..."


Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche)
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 00:55:53 GMT

In <C0o6Ku.K6I@news.udel.edu> don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes:

> papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>What is it that you think is in OS/2 that wasn't invented (probably by
>>IBM) long, long before the Amiga?  Just because there hasn't been a
>>"widely available multitasking OS for the Intel architecture" doesn't
>>mean that multitasking originated with the Amiga.  If the Amiga had
>>never existed, OS/2 would have been multitasking in competition with
>>Windows, NeXT, SysVR4.2, Solaris, NT and VMS.

>     OS/2 was a project started by MS and IBM after the Amiga had already
>been on the market for a while.  Every once in a while around here someone
>brings up the posting on an internal bulletin board at IBM in the early days
>of OS/2 development in which one of the programmers said something like,
>"Why don't we just buy AmigaOS from Commodore and save ourselves four years?".

Probably; they chose to hire 4 times as many programmers to get the job
done in one year ;-)

>     It's interesting that when I took my Amiga to work (to get some things
>done more efficiently than I could have on my 486), several of the people
>who saw me using it were amazed.  One of them is now saving for a 1200, 
>and another has started buying copies of Amiga magazines to learn more about
>the machines.  These are both former die-hard DOS/Windows/OS2 users.

Goes to show there's unjustified prejudice on both sides of
the argument.

I have nothing against 486's as long as the get the job
done. Thing is; I haven't yet found a job that can be done
with MS-DOS that couldn't have been done with CP/M ;-)

My 4000 uses less than 1 M RAM and 5 M Hard Disk (everything
from Distribution Floppies installed) to provide a
responsive GUI; a true multi-tasking and multi-threaded O/S
(even for disk IO), and a system programming environment that's
second only to UNIX in my experience.

Can anybody out there run Windows on a 486 with Windows in 2
M RAM and with 20MB of hard disk - and still have room left
for a C compiler, games (:-)), utilities, etc? And, above
all, is the system still responsive, actually multi-tasking?

-- 
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _-,_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /  |   \ bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.'-._/         Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: +61 9 362 9355
From: jprad@faatcrl.faa.gov (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 8 Jan 1993 17:00:49 -0500
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Pomona, NJ
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: faatcrl.faa.gov

davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) writes:

>Message passing is what makes memory (or process) protection on the Amiga a
>difficult proposition.  It's been thrashed out here lots of times (and how to
>implement private memory spaces under AmigaOS is still an interesting topic,
>but I'll try to stay ON topic - not that VM seems to have anything to do with
>Computer Chronicles!  :-).

  Yes, I suppose it's more of an MP issue than VM.

>It might, yes.  Then again, we're not talking about C64s here.  Code size
>shouldn't be that big compared to RAM, so overlays won't help that much.

  Dunno, GNU Emacs under OS/2 is close to a megabyte, which is 1/8th of my
entire memory in the 486 box I've got here.  I think that's a fairly large
program and something that's definately a candidate for overlays.

>Unless the program is huge, in which case it may be hard for the programmer to
>make the right decisions.  The bigger the code, the less likely it is that
>anyone really understands what's going on in it...  The other possibility is
>that you are doing a lot of multitasking, in which case the OS will have the
>best idea of what code is being used the least.

  True, but understanding what it's doing while it's running from the users
point of view coupled with a profiler can go a long way to making some informed
decisions on building a decent overlayed version.

  -jack-
From: kontos@clipper.ingr.com (Thorne Kontos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: A question (as usual)
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:54:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

Does the current power up deal on the A4000 apply to the A4000 tower?
E-mail responses only...

                                        Thank you,
                                        Thorne K. Kontos
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: Advocacy? What do you want for the Amiga?
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:55:52 GMT

In article <1irbnvINNqc0@uwm.edu> Gregory Block writes:
>In article <C0nHrv.Grn@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>   That is the typical Amigoid attitude.  With "one of the best multitasking
>>OSs around", you are too proud to run useful software on the computer.  But
>>perfectly willing to run non-multitasking games and demos.
>
>You're really stuck your foot up your ass.  It has _NOTHING_ to do
>with that, and your lack of vision into the reason behind that
>statement is astounding.

Thanks for the support (I'm the typical Amigoid referred to above  :-).

>  What C= needs to do is set _MORE_ standards.
>C= should set an arexx command standard.  Applications should support
>a minimum set of standardized commands.  The "customized connections"
>you refer to can be done invisibly through arexx ports in each
>individual program.

Yes, I tried to say this in my earlier post.  It shouldn't be necessary for
the user to learn ARexx (although it's not hard, especially since, once you've
learnt the macro language of one app, you've learnt them all).  What I'd like
to see is, for example, if you've imported a picture into a document, the
word processor should allow the user to select the picture, then select "edit"
in a menu.  This would copy the image into the clipboard, load a paint program,
instruct it to load the image in the clipboard, allow the user to edit it,
then transfer back to the clipboard on exit.  All the user should need to know
is the name of their preferred paint program, which would be recorded in
preferences setting for the wp.  All we need are standardised Arexx commands
for load, save, etc.  That, and better clipboard support.

>That's a big philosophy change from the current types of works
>software, but it would be what is necessary--it would enable people to
>use their own applications as "modules".

This is the crux of the matter.  It's why I told Marc to try thinking like an
Amigan.  Building up from smaller, single-purpose modules is a different way
of thinking, or paradigm, from throwing every possible feature into one huge
application.  People can either see the advantage of a more modular approach,
or they can't.


>Greg


-- 
David Meiklejohn (davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au)
 - PC's, Unix, and networks by day, Amigas by night...
Currently residing in Mareeba, Far North Queensland, Australia
From: ag@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (andy garton)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:25:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Questions about new computers/future chipsets
Organization: Hewlett-Packard SSG/CSY-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy

What is "RTG"?!?

Thanks...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Garton                                                 ag@hpopd.pwd.hp.com
Software Development Engineer
Hewlett Packard Ltd
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: zarthac@bradley.edu (Matthew Simmons)
Subject: Re: Real Time OS (was: To VM or not to VM?)
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:49:14 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: cs1.bradley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Marc N. Barrett (barrett@iastate.edu) wrote:
: In article <1ig11lINNbdo@uwm.edu> bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
: >In article <C0GK7M.3D9@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> engb@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Ben Eng) writes:
: >I just things there are better things to work on, more important
: >things to take up space in ROM.  I'd sooner see full resource tracking
: >than VM, I'd rather see some really nice debugging MP stuff.

:    VM would not necessarily have to go in ROM, and would not necessarily 
: take very long to make a standard part of the Amiga OS.  If this GigaMem
: really is what people say it is, Commodore could buy it, make any necessary
: changes, and package it with the Amiga OS. 

:   The biggest disadvantage of GigaMem right now is that you never know if it
: will be obsoleted by a small change to the OS.  If Commodore bought it, they
: could easily make sure that any changes to the OS did not render GigaMem
: incompatible, or make the changes to GigaMem if some small change to the OS
: did.

: ---
: | Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
: --------------------------------------------------------------------
: "No, I just think that a computer grafted on top of another computer
: is a kludge.  It has nothing to do with the AGA chipset." -- me


Do you maybe think that Commodore is waiting to see if just that will
happen?  To see if Gigamem is a well written program or just a poor hack?
To see if somebody invents a better mousetrap before buying it and putting
it in the system?  How long did it take them to buy AREXX?  How long for
CrossDOS (thought I would have preferred MessyDOS... Never have liked 
CrossDOS)  Naaah....  that would have taken intelligent thought, which
you are incapable of....  Are you by chance related to Jerry Shekel?
--
---------------------------------------------------------
My newsreader is screwed up... Therefore, it doesn't print the machine
name for email... Please send all email to zarthac@cs1.bradley.edu or
zarthac@camelot.bradley.edu
---

Millions of lemmings can't be wrong -- throw yourself off a cliff
Remember to always be a visionary, or someone will do it for you and beat you.
From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:20:24 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Michael van Elst (mlelstv@spckls.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de) wrote:
:
: It just makes the point clear. Having _not_enough_physical_RAM_ can't be
: helped with VM other than a short term solution.
:

Yes, but VM can help you make the best use of your physical RAM (by swapping
out unused code).

:
: It will simply deny the request. There isn't much a difference between:
: does not function and does function very poorly for everydays work.
:

Yes, but when you get into the situation where you need to run more than you
normally do, there's a world of difference between "dies" and "continues
slowly".

:
: Michael van Elst
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: lindblad@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jarkko Lindblad)
Subject: Re: Intel vs. Motorola performance
Organization: University of Helsinki
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:14:22 GMT

Aaron M. Buhr (abuhr@owlnet.rice.edu) wrote:
>       Please, if you're going to say ANYTHING about Intel CPU vs. Motorola
> CPU performance, back up your claims with third-party benchmarks available
> (same source) for both systems, ideally the SpecInt92 and SpecFP92 figures.

Same source does not make benchmarks any more valid that they really
are. Have you ever hear on optimizations?

> This subject has been flamed back and forth over and over and over, ad
> nauseum...   Not that you can't say that about quite a few other arguments
> here on c.s.a.a, but it seems that in this case there's a fairly simple,
> equitable solution, namely the Spec figures.

Spec's are not more valid that other benchmarks.

If Specmarks would be the absolute truth of _CPU_ performance, then
why do different PC-configurations (with 486) get different results,
or why do similar PC-configurations get different results?

We can also use some other third party benchmarks which suggest that
486 is twice as fast as 386 at same clock speed and that 040 is four
times faster than 030 at same clock speed. And we all know that 030 is
faster than 386 is it's caches are turned on. (..oops, we all dont
know this... I forgot certain people I rather not name here :)

-- 
Jarkko Lindblad         | sleep my friend and you will see
lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi | that dream is my reality
------------------------| they keep me locked up in this cage
          - MetallicA - | can't they see it's why my brain say rage
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy