HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (Kenneth Jamieson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: HAM-E device
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:38:45 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

In article <ajaffe.21u1@amiganet.chi.il.us> ajaffe@amiganet.chi.il.us (Adi Jaffe) writes:
>
>
>What youre probably talking about is something I read in .INFO a couple months
>back, where Black Belt Systems had offered to work with Commodore/other
>developers as to establishing a retargetable graphics standard. No new news.
>
>
>DMK

	Well - not quite. This guy was not talking about an offer. He
was claiming personal contact with people who were working with C= on
a regular basis doing C= funded design work for production Amigas. 

-- 

+--[ 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!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: har@ux.acs.umn.edu (--SeebS--)
Subject: Re: New Amigas Announced!!!!
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 05:53:19 GMT

skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls) writes:
>I hope no one gets too pissed off by this post, but if you are, why don't
>you grab a cold one, get a little buzz, and enjoy life a bit.  :-)
>

I like Guiness, myself.  I once made a Guiness float - large mug of beer,
add two scoops of vanilla ice cream.

It was interesting.

Mostly, though, I don't drink... See, alcohol slows down your brain,
right? The way I see it, I don't drink non-caffinated stuff unless I'm
planning to work on an intel-based machine.

I like this. I bet all the IBM clone people like Bud - Why ask why?

-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)
From: kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (KodaK)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:17:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr10.213319.4406@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>>As far as I can tell, each has a fast 32-bit CPU, graphics, a hard disk, a
>>>diskette drive, a keyboard, and a mouse :)

>>As far as you can tell?  I was hoping for a bit of technical specifications,
>>like amount of RAM, type of graphics, etc.  I apologize if I ask too much of
>>you.

>OK, the A3000 has standard Amiga graphics and 9MB RAM.  The 386 has an SVGA
>with the ET4000 chip (1MB video RAM) and 8MB RAM with a 64K static RAM cache.

  You forgot to mention that the 3000 has 2 MB chip RAM which more or less
equals video RAM. (not the amount [1 != 2 :)] just the function).  I have
very limited exposure to any IBM clone above 8086 so I'm not about to do
some BS filled point by point article as to why the Amiga is better than
the 386/486.  I used a C64 and by the time I wanted to upgrade I was ready
for an Amiga, I liked what it did then (and still do now).  I don't see
IBM compatibility as a necessity, and I  doubt I ever will.  When I get
the money to upgrade I WILL go to another Amiga the software base is 
there now and will  be for a long time to come.  *IF* I ever need to 
run IBM I can always ask one of my friends who have an IBM if I could use
it (the one they bought because that's what THEY needed at the time) the
same as when they come over and want to play a game, or make a MOD or 
sample something, or digitize a picture, or ..... :)

  Anyway give it a few years and ALL PC's will be obsolete, everyone
will have X-display stations (w/ 16-bit sound of course :) hooked up
to their cable, right?  :)

--Jason Balicki
kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu

>>-- Gerald
>+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
>| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
>| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
>|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
>+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
>|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
>|                            jerry@polygen.com                               |
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: peterk@public.sub.org (Peter Kittel)
Subject: Re: 040 and 486 and nap42487 knows nothing about CPUs.
Organization: Public News & Mailserver, Commodore Germany PM UNIX, Frankfurt
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 06:43:53 GMT

dano@usl.edu (Dan Stephenson) writes:

>If it makes any difference, a friend who has programmed on both the
>Atari 1040ST and PC clones had addressed this.  He basically said that
>people who programm the 68000 (example) usually start on that, so moving
>to Intel makes for more of a 'new' problem. ie, he says: "You get used
>to it.  If you'd started with Intel, it would be difficult, at least at
>first, to move to a 68000.

That's not my experience. The first microprocessor I programmed in assembly
was the 8085 from Intel. I always struggled with it and shook my head why
on earth everything was so limited and clumsy. I got some things going,
but it was always a real pain. And then reading everytime at the bottom
of each page of the Intel assembly language docs "Mnemonics copyright by
Intel". On every page! I never had the feeling that they should feel proud
for this issue.

And then I started with the 6502. BIG difference, clean, nearly orthogonal,
compact and clearly structured. I really fell in love with it. And this all
didn't change at all with the newer chips from Intel and Motorola (ok, they
didn't make the 6502, but their relationship is obvious). If nobody forces
me to, I will never touch Intel assembly again.

-- 
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to  \\  Only my personal opinions... 
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
                                   or  peterk@public.sub.org
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: kdarling@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Subject: Re: Video Machine - Toaster Sales Killer?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:15:04 GMT

rjc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) writes:
> Advocacy Alert:  This post is bound to spark a lot of heated arguement. 

It actually shouldn't.  It's always just been a matter of time until
similar PC or Mac systems would appear for sale.

However, the Video Machine doesn't appear to be a total Toaster replacement.
Here is a reply from someone on the CIS Amiga forum who saw it at COMDEX:
 
    "It looks good - like a Toaster in many ways, such as alpha channel
  transitions and overlays. They can do pixelization wipes, but I didn't
  see anything like the Toaster's remapping wipes, like wrapping video
  on a cube."
    "It reduces images much more cleanly than a Toaster, it drops individual
  pixels as compared to the Toaster dropping every fourth pixel (I think).
  They showed Windows-based sequencing of transition effects and sequenced
  triggers for playing sounds. It has two TBCs on-board.  No other signs of
  character-generating software, although some of the literature describes
  Type 1 support, [...]"
     "It's all digital 4:2:2, and can apparently work in both PAL and NTSC
  simultaneously, with S-video and composite inputs, and a four-channel
  stereo audio mixer.  They showed versions for the PC and Mac - [...]"
 
So for the fancier effects, I think a producer will still want and need
a Toaster.  There's also the Lightwave software factor for some.

> The PAL/SECAM handling will be a big plus! NewTek screwed up royally
> by not offering PAL. 

Yes, the Y/C inputs/outputs, the built-in TBC, and the PAL/SECAM/NTSC
mixing capabilities are all features that would be nice in the Toaster.

Note the thread title: IMHO, once people perceive that Toaster-like devices
are coming that will fit into and work directly with their own machines,
then it becomes more and more important for NewTek to announce similar
non-Amiga-dependent boards... or risk losing sales.

kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks --
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:47:49 PST
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG

Quoted from <1992Apr8.045946.13000@cheshire.oxy.edu> by leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt):

> Hey, Apple has decided to market Macs through... SEARS!  What a BRILLIANT
> move... I wish COMMODORE would think of such a thing!  Imagine... hooking

    I think CBM should have a shot at moving machines through AmWay. They
    have an interesting sort of market, and computers with their tendency
    to get followon business buying peripherals and software would fit
    nicely into AmWay's thing about volume.

    The next step would be to get one of those big fundamentalist outfits,
    if they still have them in the US, to push CBM sales.

> Thom
--
*** 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: tinyguy@cs.mcgill.ca (Yeo-Hoon BAE)
Subject: Re: Jerry "knows" 486's faster than 68040.
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:22:09 GMT

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.

>Why don't we look at some other things:
>
>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.

>68040 has 8 general purpouse registers and 7 general purpouse data registers
>(all 32 bit). Didn't 486 have 2 *general purpouse* registers and several
>others? That means more register shuffle on 486.
>

  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...

>68040 has copyback mode on it's data cache.
>
  486 only has write-through mode, so as long as applications are compatible,
  040 should give a significant performance edge.

>68040 can perform both floating point and integer instrcutions at the same
>time. Can 486 do the same (I don't know)?
>
  i don't see why not.

>68040 has separate data & instruction cache, both are 4k. 80486 only one
>unified cache of 8k.
>

  Also, 040 cache is 4-way set associative, where as 486 is simply direct
  mapped, which translates to some performance advantage to 040, but again,
  according to Hennesy & Patterson, the difference is not very significant
  with 8k cache size..

>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.

>--
>Jarkko Lindblad
>lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi

-TG

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

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu Ayala)
Subject: Re: New Amigas, A Proposal
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 15:24:10 GMT

In article <jayson.01ls@tbag.UUCP> jayson@tbag.UUCP (Jayson Phillips) writes:
>>From: Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP (Paula Lieberman)
>>Subject: Re: New Amigas, A Proposal Re: New Amigs, Finally
>>Date: 11 Mar 92 05:18:24 GMT
>>
>>I -want- virtual memory. There is a 100 MB Quantum [which I suspect is
>>beginning to stick.... sigh] hookNot
>>enough memory" show up in my face, only having 2.5 MB of RAM, when trying
>>to do some things.  I do -not- want a machine with an '020.  Apple uses
> 
>Nothing wrong with virtual memory.  But it may be difficult to implement
>in the Amiga OS.  And it could slow things down a little.  In any case,
>it won't happen any time soon.  So you better figure out some other way
>to solve the problem.  I'm a fan of "plug in another couple megs" myself.
>If you've only got 2.5 megs you really can't complain too much. All Amigas
>can be configured at least to 9MB.  In fact, most systems with virtual
>memory (usually UNIX, and now OS/2) have 8MB or more.  And if you try
>to do very much at all on these systems things slow down to a crawl.  If


  Yeah I know.  A Sparc 1 with only 8 Megs is always swapping to
  disk. Heck, you can hear the swish swish of the disks as you
  open a window, read some mail, try to close the mailtool and
  move a window.  You can't even get your pointer to move until
  the mail window closes.  I had to resort to running SunView
  while waiting for my ram.  No wonder people around here pull
  out the eight 1 Meg simms and fully populate the motherboard
  with 16 4 meg Simms to get 64K of RAM.  Nowadays people say
  4 meg Simms are too small.  I've written OpenWindows Applications
  that took forever to even open up on my bosses 8 Meg sparc,
  and try and load a 300 dpi tiff file 8-1/2 by 11 into a scrolling
  window and draw on it, her machine would lock up as it was
  swapping.  However I had no trouble on my 48 meg Sparc330 so I
  had no idea that she was thrashing about while trying out
  my stuff.  This is just to display a .tiff file.  Rasters
  are much faster for obvious reason, no decompressing, etc.

  So the lesson is, even in those big boy systems you still
  need more RAM,  you always need more RAM, heck a couple of
  gigabytes of RAM wouldn't hurt for virtual reality applications.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Chu, Ph.D.             Data & Information Services
NYNEX Science & Technology   clare@nynexst.com
White Plains, NY 10462       AMIGA RULES!!!
From: wulf@elfie.async.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:05:51 GMT
Reply-To: wulf@elfie.async.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Organization: NeuSoft

In article <7459@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>He didn't say he had upgraded.  He said his 1000 was from 85/86.  Although a
>late 86 1000 would have extra half brite, one from 85 would not.  If he had
>upgraded his motherboard, then the machine would not be from 85/86, it would
>be a 1000 CASE with a 91 motherboard.  Also, the same argument would hold true
>in the reverse if you were to replace an 1982 PC with a 1992 486DX
>motherboard.  IF he had upgraded, his argument would be moot, because the
>whole point of the statement was trying to say that his 1985 1000 could do
>everything that new amigas can today.  Which it obviously cannot.

This is much like the philosophical debate as to what constitutes continuity -
you don't have very many of the same particles in your body (not to mention
cells) as when you were born, yet you consider yourself to have "the same" body
(although now at least slightly more mature!).  If we ever develop matter-
transmission, is the newly generated person on the other end of the transporter
the same person that walked into the entrance, or just a faximile created after
the original was killed?

#   ########   #  ################TM# || "I'd give my right arm to be
##  #      #   # #                    ||  ambidextrous!"
# # # #### #   #  ###   ##  ####  #   || 
#  ##      #   #     # #  # #     #   || 
#   # ####  ###  ####   ##  #     #   || Jake Rose at jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Subject: Re: Apple "Loses" Look-and-Feel Lawsuit
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:37:10 GMT

In article <g8zjqyf.damiel@netcom.com> damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos) writes:
>
>they've gone after many small businesses in "protecting" their hallowed
>MacIntosh *name*... it's rather surprised me that they've never even 
>mentioned C= and the Amiga, considering C= has used Trashcan Icons,
>window sizers, etc etc that are fundamentally similar (there's that
>"look and feel" idea!) to the Mac. 

	Commodore isn't making more money than Apple, and I'm quite sure that
John Sculley and his crew can relate to some of the upper Management in 
C=.  ("Hell, we had a nice game of golf yesterday, 1$ Million bonus!")

-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         C program run.  Run  
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA          Program run! PLEASE!
Ever wonder how Worf got to be Security Officer on the Enterprise when the 
Capt gets kidnapped from the bridge every two episodes and Troy Beats him up?
From: bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 337 shells on an Amiga 500 - WB is **slow**
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:25:45 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <liam.02nk@durie.amigans.gen.nz> liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood) writes:

>>Can you say... "Archimedes" ? ;-)

>    Yep, my Dad had to use one over Xmas past (the school he teaches at has
>them, obviously too much money :-) ).

Nah, a powerful Arc is not expensive at all. Compare the new Arc 5000 to the
Amiga 3000 - 18 mips versus 9 mips, and <UK2000 versus >UK3000 for a similar
setup. 

>As he is computer illiterate and hoping
>to stay that way (...bit of a Luddite, me old man is) I had to work out how to
>use one. A little bit different than yer common or garden Amiga/Mac/Windows
>environment, but not to much. It would be relativly easy to emulate the 'feel'
>of the Archies' GUI on an Amiga with some PD utilities.

The Arc really does have a lot of "unique" features in its GUI, like the icons
for each loaded application along the bottom of the screen where you can drop
data files, and also the complete lack of file-requestors (everything done by
dragging icons).

>    Anyway, my overwhelming impression of the Archies' GUI was SLOW. Once into
>an application it humped along O.K., but an Amiga 500 seemed a bit livelier,
>Gui-wise.

SLOW?!?!! Urgle. Tell me, what screenmode were you running in? I *bet* it was 
not 4 colours like your A500. More likely 256 colours, which is the default
for an Arc. Try 16 colours - it's quite nippy. :-)

What might make an Amiga seem more lively is pre-emptive multitasking. The
Arc only has co-operative, although its implementation of it seems to be 
better than that on a Mac, and also its raw speed helps out as well...

Barry.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: sctconno@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Dave Connors)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  6 Apr 92 05:56:40 GMT

nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:

>Once again, I do not know how my follow ups are going to other groups besides
>advocacy, but anyway:

You can't be looking very hard, I've just changed the NewsGroups line now 
so this won't go outside .advocacy.

>Regarding Dave Conners' garbage about the Amiga and 040:
>did you actually try any serious apps for both the Amiga and the IBM? obviously
>not. And many processors can in some way or another be called multiprocessing.
>there are many multiprocessed 386's out there. But the 486 is truely a
>multiprocessing processor. It can be done with others, but it is harder, less
>common, and less efficient. 

You obviously don't read. I said "THE '030 AND '040 HAVE MULTIPROCESSING
SUPPORT BUILT IN". To most people this would mean that there are various
pins and instructions which allow the interfacing of processors with
greater ease. I don't claim to be any 'be all and end all' to electronics
or the describing there of, but I do know for a fact that I've had 3
seperate highly respected 680x0 programers tell me of this multi-processing
capabilities.

>And about the floating point speed, don't you mean
>MFLOPS? What does 3.5 MIPS tell you? And anyway, the 25 MHz 040 is only
>slightly faster than the 33 MHz 486 in raw speed floating point
>benchmarks. But that is just raw speed, any processor with the needed 
>instructions for the test, which is not a whole lot, will do fine. But with a
>real application, it will be in a sorry state, cause the better the instruction
>set, the better off the app will be. And a 50 MHz 486 will beat out an 040 
>in floating point benchmarks anyway.

Yes, I did make a mistake. It should have been MFlops instead of MIPS. You 
must a a rare person to think the 486's have a superior instruction set. I
have not come across ONE IBM owner (apart from yourself) who enjoys 
assembly programming on the PC. 

No joke that a 33Mhz 486 will be closer to a 25Mhz '040 than a 25 Mhz '486.
The 33Mhz '040 (which is due soon) which do a stonking 25 MIPS (sustained)
and proportionately higher MIPage. There is a 50Mhz '040 due out before the
end of the year.


-- 
WARNING: people quota (/sol/earth) exceeded  | Dave Connors              //
Delete all IBM owners        ----------------  D.Connors@sct.gu.edu.au \X/
God# rm -R *.IBM.people     |  " My opinions may have changed, but the 
God#                        |        fact that I am right hasn't. "
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: schaem@sgi.com (greg schaem)
Subject: Re: New Amigas, A Proposal Re: New Amigs, Finally
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:05:39 GMT

In article <30099@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>In article <itocddg@fido.asd.sgi.com> schaem@sgi.com (greg schaem) writes:
>>In article <29846@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>
>>I see 25mhz 020 for 30$... 68030+6882 25mhz combo for 600$...
>
>You're way, way, way, way off on that figure.  Looking in the Motorola price 
>book I just happen to keep handy, you get a CQFP 68030 at 25MHz, quantity one,
>for $144.00, and the PLCC 68882 at 25MHz for $64.21, quantity one, for a 
>total of $208.21.  The PQFP 68020 is listed at $52.99, quantity one.  So that's
>less than a factor of four difference, not the factor of twenty you imply, 
>assuming you bought these one at a time.  I assure you, C= doesn't buy anything
>one at a time, so the cost differential will be significantly less.
>-- 
>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
> 

 But are you selling those at my mentioned prices? :-) JK..
It just that I saw the 25mhz 030 advertized at 275$ and the 25mhz 82 at 225$,
its nice to know Motorola direct prices...

 Also this make alot more sens now.If I asume CBM get the 030+82 at 160 and
a 020 at 40$: the gap is very norrow especially if the 82 is optional.
 Maybe a low cost 32bit amiga in the future...

 Thank's prices correction.

							Stephan.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games