HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hellfire@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Brian Young)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:03:38 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt) writes:

>God, I bet it must've been shitfuckin' awesome to own an Amiga in '86.

It was!  The Amiga 1000 I got in Feb. 1986 is still the only Amiga I own, and 
works great! (Not obsolete... yet.)  See if you can say that about a 1986 IBM
machine!

>Still is.

Yup.  The worst thing about owning a six year old Amiga is deciding which one
to get next!

>Thom
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         hellfire@catt.ncsu.edu - Brian Young - bfyoung@eos.ncsu.edu
 RUSH, Amiga, and Dr. Who --> The finer things in Life. - Go NCSU WOLFPACK!
      _Beauty and the Beast_ for best picture!  Have you seen it yet?
From: lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jerry "knows" 486's faster than 68040.
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:08:37 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Apr8.122209.7837@cs.mcgill.ca>, tinyguy@cs.mcgill.ca (Yeo-Hoon BAE) writes:
> In article <1992Apr7.165843.1@cc.helsinki.fi> lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
> 
>>Wrong Jerry.
>>Do not belive in benchmarks so blindly. Benchmarks are too dependent on other
>>things (compilers, external caches etc.).
> 
>   I believe the claims made by Jerry came from the Specmarks results.

Aren't Specmarks benchmarks?

>>68040 instrucions are in average perhaps 30-50% faster than equivalent 486
>>instrcutions while instruction set on both is comparable.
> 
>   If I remember correctly, for the integer calculations, 486 and 040
>   are very close, perhaps a little edge to 040, but not much.

A couple of moths agot someone posted info on the clocks used by most general
instructions. Just about all of them were faster on 68040.

>   Yes, I agree that this is a definite advantage for 040, but there are
>   things that can be done more efficiently on 486, such as string
>   manipulation...

True. And isn't this one of the reasons why 80x86-series tend to get quite high
Dhrystone numbers?

>>FMUL on 486 takes 16 clocks, on 68040 it takes 5 clocks. FADD takes 10 on 486,
>>3 on 68040, DIV takes 73 on 486, 37 on 68040. To me it seems that floating
>>points seem to go 3 times faster. Also to much hated MFLOPS: Intel claims it's
>>486@25 to have 1 MFLOPS while Morotola claims 3.5 MFLOPS @ 25 MHz. And floating
>>point instructions are quite similar on both floating point units.
>>
> 
>   The problem with Specmarks on 040 is that some of the Spec tests use
>   trigonometry functions which are not hardwire-implemented on 040.
>   I expect much better gain with 040 as compiler develops more specifically
>   to each CPU.

Fortunately in real world most floating point instructions used are inside
68040 and need not to be software emulated.

> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------- +
> | Yeo-Hoon Bae                                   U3/4 Computer Science        |
> | tinyguy@cs.mcgill.ca           __o             McGill University            |
> | (514) 939-9560                -\<,             Montreal, Quebec, Canada     |
> | ............................(*)/(*)........................................ |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
Jarkko Lindblad
lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi
From: har@ux.acs.umn.edu (--SeebS--)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 040 and 486_ (bunch O' Kaka anyway)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:02:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux.1992Apr16.210231.1706
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1992Apr15.224149.1414@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>Why do we even bother talking about this? It is obvious we are not going
>get exact equal comparisons, so we should do this the easy way. Get 
>a magazine that has already tried comparing the two and read their results
>(like I said before, something like a UNIX magazine that tested a common
>operating system, etc.)

Oh, like the famed unix review article where they were sent an untuned small
machine. Yeah, right.

Look, the unix magazines know that their largest market is people coming into
unix with their 386 boxes, and the last thing these people want to see is
any benchmark that would make their boxes seem inferior. If such benchmarks
show up, they will be supressed.

>Another reason why we should do this, instead of talk about testing, is,
>that the benchmarks have to be comprehensive to some point. They should 
>actually DO something, 

Ok. Fine. I propose a new benchmark: Let's see which computer can boot into
a fully multitasking OS faster.

Time for my A3000, from selecting a boot partion to the operating system
being up: .5 sec.

Yes, I timed it. :)

-s
-- 
Peter Seebach, using my fiancee's acount. (Please use "SEEBS" in the subject
line, so we know who it's for.)  Polygamy: "There can be more than one."
I use an amiga because it works better than all the other machines I tried.
har@ux.acs.umn.edu (Love Incarnate)
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:12195 comp.sys.amiga.games:6725 comp.sys.amiga.misc:8294 comp.sys.amiga.multimedia:796 comp.sys.amiga.graphics:3557 comp.sys.amiga.hardware:8584
From: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (Kenneth Jamieson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:30:40 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

In article <hellfire.702684218@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> hellfire@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Brian Young) writes:
>leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt) writes:
>
>>God, I bet it must've been shitfuckin' awesome to own an Amiga in '86.
>
>It was!  The Amiga 1000 I got in Feb. 1986 is still the only Amiga I own, and 
>works great! (Not obsolete... yet.)  See if you can say that about a 1986 IBM
>machine!

	(for the record, I also only have a A1000 from the 85/86 days)

	And I can honestly say that there are almost no programs that
make use of any feature I don't have.

	Yeah - here's something to be proud of! ( 1/2 :-) )


-- 

+--[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Lingerie, Consulting, RPG's and ANIME ]-+.sign
|  Please send email for detailed product or catalogue information!  |ature
|             Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1             |Virus
|---NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by anybody!---|V3.2
|              Original contents are Copyright (c)1992               |1992!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom"
Date: 3 Apr 92 06:31:55 GMT
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN

In article <bmccnnll.702056014@unix1.tcd.ie>, bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell) writes:
|>>Mac OS does not have a RexxMaster to support interprocess communication. 
|> Amiga OS does not have System 7's Publish & Subscribe, which is a different
|> way of transferring messages and data between applications.
|> 
	Hmm, Publish & Subscript is message passing... The thing with
	AREXX is that one or more apps can CONTROL one or more other
	apps through the ports in addition to passing data, messages,
	pointer, etc.

|> >Mac OS does not directly support a Blitter, a Copper, or multiple screens
!>with varied bit-depths and resolution on the same monitor.  
|> Amiga OS does not support one BIG screen across *several* monitors.
|> 
	Why exactly does one want to do this? No other PC or Workstation
	really does this so I'm inclined to think it's a Marketing
	bullet more than a feature.

|>>Mac OS does not support  AGFA-Compugraphic Bullet Font technology.
|> It does not need to; it has its own Outline Font support, which appears to
|> work a lot better than on the Amiga... (No mucking around in Fountain to get
|> the size you want, and then re-load the application which needs it so it
|> recognises the new font.)
|> 
	Both of these are the fault of the application, not the scaling
	technology in AmigaDOS. It could also be said that the Amiga
	doesn't need the Mac's outline support because the Amiga gets
	along just fine with IT'S support.

	By the way, I can scale type 1, Speedo and other scalable font
	technologys under X11R5 on my Amiga. Be careful that you say
	AmigaDOS when you make sweeping statements like this. The X11R5
	contrib area has code that lets any X capable system do font
	scaling with the standard X11R5 font scaler.

		-Rob
From: dtiberio@csws6.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Commodore R&D Drops Almost 25%
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:58:25 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

In article <1992Apr7.165738.7477@sun.pcl.ac.uk> marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk (Marcus Harvey) writes:
>>was changed to Amiga after a couple of months. Amiga was supposedly derived
>>from "Amica" or "Amicabilis" which is Latin for "friendly" or "peaceable".
>>
>The word "amiga" is Spanish for "female friend". They must have known this.
>
>So we have Girlfriend Computer Inc., Girlfriend500, Only Girlfriend Makes it
>Possible etc...

	I believe it is more appropriate to say Girl Friend 500, not
Girlfriend 500 (note also the space between Friend and 500).

	Second, I heard a while ago that origininally they
chose Amica, and not Amiga. Amica in Italian means girl
friend also. It appears that there already was a company,
possibly a computer related company, that used that name.
Maybe they should have called it the Pommedoro (sp).


-- 
      //   David Tiberio  SUNY Stony Brook 2-3662  AMIGA  DDD-MEN   
     //  Not the llama! Come here Earl; I want to tell you something...
   \X/		Liverpool, New York	    Yes, I like 3D.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: AppleEvents, how to they work?
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:32:46 PST
 <jbickers.05mj@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <torrie.702873897@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG

Quoted from <torrie.702873897@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie):

>   Wouldn't it be better to standardise messages between applications?

    I think it would be impractical. I've seen one instance where one
    program, in order to completely replace another, implemented a superset
    of the previous programs ARexx commands.

    But otherwise, ARexx scripts tend to be purpose built, and worrying
    about making things consistent is just one more fairly useless drag on
    productivity.

    What can one say. I write ARexx scripts, and I write programs that
    provide ARexx ports, and in neither case has it ever bothered me that
    the apps I'm programming are different from other apps I might (but
    don't) have.

> Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.        jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***    "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk    ***
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau)
Subject: Re: C= policy (Re: Apple problems "Home computer")
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:58:36 GMT

In article <root.01b3@rkamiga.UUCP> root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>If I was an MSDOS user, I would jump for OS/2 2.0.  For ~$60 it is a
>much better value than Windows NT, which has a rumoured price of $500.
>I might also note that NT has only been shown on RISC machines so far.

  I thought someone at Microsoft made an official statement that NT
is going to cost around $500 (gotta go back and check), i.e. it is not
a rumored price.  But of course if OS/2 2.0 gains any kind of momentum
you would bet Microsoft would price NT cheap to stay competitive.  Anyway
NT is still vaporware so the point is moot.

*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii           
Internet: lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu, Stephen_Lau@asylum.flex.com
From: lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: AppleEvents
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:47:40 GMT

In article <coronax.702339716@vincent1.iastate.edu>, coronax@iastate.edu
(Christopher D Just) writes:
> 
> Indeed? And how useful is that when, for example, the program you are
> writing has absolutely no idea:
> 	a. what program it's supposed to be sending a message to.

There are a number of ways to define what program is the target of the Apple
event.  It can be a process ID on the current machine; an application ID (each
application has a registered ID); or there's a dialog that lets the user select
a target application that may be anywhere on the network.

> 	b. what the contents of that message are supposed to be.

Apple events defines the contents of the messages.  Each message is
self-contained for the msot part and includes the operation (verb) and a
description of the data (noun).  There are several suites of Apple events for
text, graphics, etc.  

An example Apple event might have "font change" as the verb and "4th word of the
first paragraph of Doc" as the noun.  (Note that the text is only an example;
the Apple event contains a compact, binary representation of the verb & noun.)

Apple events are not a scripting interface, but given an application that
supports Apple events (eg, PageMaker 4.2), you can implement different scripting
front-ends to drive those applications.  There are standard resources that an
application contains to tell the scripting front-end what Apple events it
responds to, and what objects its defines.
--
Larry Rosenstein
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Memory duplication.
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:55:18 PST
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG

Quoted from <1992Apr6.175522.17443@ctr.columbia.edu> by jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel):

> among instances of the same application.  Data, of course, cannot be shared,
> except for constant data.  And that's true for *all* OS's, including ADOS.
> You do know the difference between code and data, don't you?

    Both Unix and AmigaDOS will let tasks share memory. I'd be surprised
    if OS/2 2.0 didn't, considering the other nice things about it. Oath
    knows about Windows, though I imagine you could force it.

    When compiling a program that will have multiple invocations, you can
    share variables by defining them as "far". The linker will complain,
    but as long as the programmer knows what they're doing, it's ok.

    The only use I can think of for sharing variables like this is
    synchronisation, but maybe there are other slick things that can be
    done.

    There are a lot of other reasons for wanting to share memory between
    applications that aren't the same app. being run multiple times.

> | Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.        jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***    "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk    ***
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt)
Subject: Wild rumor, potential for massive sea change in Amiga world...
Summary: C= to be bought out by Nintendo or Playskool?
Keywords: CBM, buyout, Ninetendo, revolution, catalepsy
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA  90041
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:39:40 GMT

Yes, indeed it is true... a random source tells me that a rumor has
recently been circulating to the effect that either Nintendo or
Playskool has been seeking to buyout CBM.

Now, before we have cataleptics over the idea of a game machine
co. buying the Amiga and turning it into a game machine, let us consider
the following concepts:

1.  Nintendo spends millions upon millions in R & D on stuff like the
    Super NES... imagine what $50 million R&D in one year would do to the
    Amiga?  Can you say 32 bit chipset NOW?  Can you say 64 bit processor
    in six months?

2.  Ninetendo and the other game machine co.'s are trying to upgrade into
    the home PC market, leverage themselves up... Ninetendo's SuperNES was
    late, and they're facing intense competition.  Buying the Amiga would
    allow Ninetendo the get the jump on their competitors, save hundreds of
    millions in R&D costs trying to reinvent the wheel, prevent themselves
    from being crippled by having to carry over obslete technology... 
    the target market of the Ninetendo is the under $1000 category, abandoned
    by all PC makers as upprofitable, except for Atari and CBM.  This market
    is CBM's specialty.

3.  Consider Ninetendo's marketing capabilities?  Can you say, $100 million
    dollar nationwide multi-media advertising?  Can you say, no more "What's
    an Amigo?"  Can you say, 10 million Amigas sold in one year?  Can you 
    say massive 3rd party product selection?  Can you say, CHEAP third
    party products as a result?

4.  Ninetendo's R&D will be as focused on the high end as the low, as they're
    smart enough to realize (especially with the SNES debacle) that the 
    high end becomes the low end faster than you can say "boo!"  They'll want
    to support a full range product.  And, with mass marketing, their costs
    per unit will drop through the floor...

Imagine this:

Commercials everywhere...

The NEW A3500:  The PC for the power hungry... a screaming clock doubled
56 mhz '040 running half a dozen multi-tasked operations without a noticable
performance hit, tap a key and you get Pagemaker and Photoshop running in
the foreground, tap another key, and up pops Win 3.1 running Lotus 1.2.3 for
Windows, on your choice of a 386, 486 or 586 at 16 to 66 mhz.

Etc., etc., etc... can you say, pandimonium?

I knew you could... 

Anyone else heard this?

Thom
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Yes Mr. Bill, Commodore has no balls.
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:09:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.#!pj69k
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


"Hello Mr. Bill.  Why are you all dressed up in that business
suit today?"

Mr. Bill:  "Oh, I have just been made a CEO of Commodore Business
Machines.  I will be making multi-million dollar decisions and
will be effecting thousands of lives."

"Well, that sure sounds like an important job Mr. Bill.  Are you
sure that you can handle all that ...responsibility?"

Mr. Bill:  "I can handle it as long as I have my loyal dog Spot
by my side."  Mr. Bill grins.  :)  Spot wags his tail.  "My first
decisions is to make Amiga a 'business' machine."

"Better watch out Mr. Bill.  Sluggo is selling a business machine
too."

Sluggo grabs the Amiga and uses it to kill Mr. Bill's dog Spot.

Mr. Bill:  "Oooooooooo not my dog Spot.  Oooooooo noooooo!  OK,
I'll make it a game machine... it's a game machine!  Oooooooo..."

So, Mr. Bill, what will your next decision be now that Sluggo
won't let you make a business machine?

Mr. Bill:  "My next decision will be to make Amiga a scientific
machine ...a real 'UNIX' workstation."

"I think Sluggo also has a unix workstation Mr. Bill.  He won't
like you making one of those either."

Mr. Bill is grabbed by the ankles and used by Sluggo as a
baseball bat to hit the AmigaUX for a home run.

Mr. Bill:  "Ooooooo Nooooo!  Not the AmigaUX.  Ooooooo... OK,
it's a game machine... it's just a game machine!"

Well Mr. Bill.  It looks like you will have to let Amiga just be
a game machine."

Mr. Bill:  "No, my next decision is to make Amiga an interactive
multimedia entertainment device with a CD-ROM.  It is something
new that no one has ever even thought of before."

"I think Sluggo was working on something that sounded like that. 
Hmm... I'm not sure... ."

Sluggo grabs Mr. Bill and stuffs him into the CD drive of Mr.
Bill's CDTV and Mr. Bill is spun so fast that he turns to a red
and blue butter dripping out of the machine.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooo!!



                                    NCW
From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: *** ULTIMATE BASHING for PeeCee Users
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:06:14 GMT
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science

In article <ajaffe.21u7@amiganet.chi.il.us> ajaffe@amiganet.chi.il.us (Adi Jaffe) writes:
>In article <56840@cup.portal.com>, TomK@cup.portal.com (Tom R Krotchko) writes:
>>Is it considered proper to poke the eyes of someone who says the
>>initials GUI as "gooey"?
>
>Saw some salesbabe on the Home Shopping Network say "Microsoft gooey" once..
>Needless to say, I was throughly impressed at her technical knowledge--I mean,
>she convinced me right off the bat that she knew EXACTLY what she was talking
>about (haha, yea, right, and Elvis lives in my closet...)
>
>Ive also heard some salesgoober on the same shopping network claim that the
>"Intel 2-8-6 was the newest chip out on the market."
>
>Talk about capitalizing on a buyer's stupidity..Then again, thats the IBM way.

A few years ago Apple wanted people to call SCSI "sexy" instead of "scuzzy".
I have even heard new computer users talk about their S-C-S-I drives.

We should all start talking about rigby, deema, and so on instead of RGB, DMA,
and other boring names.  :-)

>DMK

Skip Sauls                     //    Graduate Student & Instructor
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu    \X/     CS Department, University of Mississippi
From: d0per@dtek.chalmers.se (Martin Hiller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Gail-chip and its uses
Keywords: chip, piracy, AFD, Gail
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:59:46 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

grubba@lysator.liu.se (Henrik Grubbstr|m) writes:

>One use of the Gail-chip I have not heared someone on the net mention yet, is
>that it incorperates the AFD-technique.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Take a good look at this abbreviation.

>The first time you use a new Amiga you have to enter a personal code, wich then
>gets burnt into the Gail chip. Then each time you use new commercial software,
>this code is transfered to the disk (even if it's write-protected).
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This just is NOT possible.

>Each time you use the disk after that, it compares the two codes, and if they
>don't match, the computer will be permanently blocked, and only CBM service
>people, will be able to reset it, and they are told to notify the police
>immediately, if an blocked amiga arrives.
>You could try to copy the disks before the code is transfered, but Gail will
>sense it and erase the disks.
>CBM have been installing the Gail-chip in all amigas since the first of April.

>All of the above information from issue #7/1992 of `DatorMagazin' (the largest
>swedish computer newspaper).

I can't believe you fell for this :-D! This is obviously a late April Fool's 
Day thing. I mean,...what do you think AFD stands for ?!?!
The magazine even says that CBM started production of computers with the new
chip installed at *APRIL 1st*.

>A couple of questions:

>	* Will Commodore recall all old amigas to swap Gary and Gail, since
>	  this obviously doesn't apply to the ones shipped with Gary?

>	* Is it really possible for the chip to write on write-protected disks,
>	  even on external drives?

>	* Will these disks be usable on old amigas?

This thing will never happen.

>Regards,
>--
>Henrik Grubbstrom					grubba@lysator.liu.se
>Lysator Computer Club,
>Linkoping University, Sweden

- Martin.
--
    // Martin Hiller (d0per@dtek.chalmers.se)| "You come from nothing,
\\ //  Chalmers University of Technology     |  you go to nothing.
 \X/   Gothenburg, Sweden, Europe            |  What've you lost? NOTHING!"
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|  - Life of Brian (Monty Python)