HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:    Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom" ?
Distribution: world
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:16:16 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <jbickers.05qb@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes:
>Quoted from <1992Apr7.125251.7543@ms.uky.edu> by justin@mik.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan):
>> John Bickers writes
>> > Quoted from <1992Apr6.195635.10380@ms.uky.edu> by justin@graphlab.cc.uky.edu   
>> (Justin Sullivan):
>> > 
>> > > A/UX 3.0 is *SVR4*.
>> > 
>> >     Why doesn't it have "Unix" in the name, BTW?
>> 
>> Because an intelligent reader would know what SVR4 is and assume it is UNIX.
>
>    So Apple actually say "A/UX 3.0 is SVR4", do they (seriously, I don't
>    know - I _thought_ they didn't say that about any A/UX)?
>
>    If they don't, then the question becomes "why doesn't it have SVR4
>    in the name, BTW?".

As far as I know, Apple only claims SYSV compatibility for A/UX.

And it is an eye opening experience to read comp.unix.aux.  After reading
that group for a while, I wouldn't take it for free.

--
Rick Kelly		Rick's Amiga		Framingham, Mass.

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: justin@mik.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom"
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:04:19 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Rob Healey writes

> 	My Amiga stock video switches screens with no noticable delays
> 	other than the fact the screen just changed to something completely
> 	different. Please elaborate on what you mean by faster than native
> 	Amiga video.

I mean that the Quadra is faster with 24-bit video then the Amiga is with it's  
12-bit "native" video.

> |> Our university is ready to open a faculty support center with desktop  
video.
> !> To my knowledge, Amigas were never even considered. If they were, they  
were  
> |> clearly beaten by the other three supported platforms in the center..  
PS/2,  
> |> Quadra and NeXT. That's a good show of what can be done on other  
platforms..

 	
> 	1) PS/2, Quadra or NeXT's are probably being GIVEN to the project so
> 	   that influences who get's choosen.

What's the matter? Commodore can't afford to donate equipment? Just an opinion.
Don't take me out of context. You failed to quote my disclaimer IN THE ARTICLE  
TEXT. Bad idea. How would you like it if I took something of yours out of  
context and whined to your boss about the things you said? You would hate it.  
It happens. Let's not let it, okay? Someone here is likely to take offense to  
it and construe the text you quoted as me acting on behalf of the University of  
Kentucky, and that simply isn't true. However, it has happened before.. 
 
> 	2) If it's a REAL desktop video lab then they'll have a Toaster for
> 	   PC or Mac there with the label obscured. The other platforms can
> 	   do video as good as an Amiga because they are acting as front
> 	   ends to the Amiga...

No, since it IS a REAL desktop video lab, we have plenty of "ordinary" video  
equipment in addition to many kinds of boards in PCs and a Quadra (probably a  
RasterOps XLTV).
 
> 	3) Cost is the main reason they'll go with a toaster as equivalent
> 	   Mac, PC or NeXT hardware would be more than a stand alone Toaster.

Not so. Quality is the biggest consideration. Leaves out the Toaster.. :)
--
*******************************************************************************
* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh>                      *
* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions.    *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: justin@graphlab.cc.uky.edu  (Justin Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom" ?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:50:48 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Evan Torrie writes
 
>   It's getting especially silly because A/UX 3.0 is NOT SVR4.  Apple is
> going the OSF/1 route, not SVR4, and is doing it with A/UX 4.0.  A/UX 3.0
> is a cleaned-up, System 7.0 capable version of what they had in A/UX 2.0.

You are quite.. WRONG! A/UX 3.0 is a VERY revamoed A/UX 2.0.. It is an  
SVR4-based UNIX.

--
*******************************************************************************
* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh>                      *
* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions.    *
*******************************************************************************
From: dinn@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael 'Moose' Dinn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: What will it take to turn CBM around???
Keywords: What do we do about this?
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:52:08 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Apr7.005722.7008@nmt.edu> sclever@nmt.edu (Shawn Clever) writes:
>A single letter, with concrete concerns sent by every Amiga user in America
>and Overseas might get the point across  (not that we could actually get 
>every user.)

Subject: Voice your opinion to Commodore -- a free opportunity. Please read me.
Distribution: world
Date: 5 Apr 92 14:41:29 ADT
Organization: The Swamp (902) 463-0483  HST/V.32/V.42bis


If you'd like a chance to send something to Commodore, here it is.
This is a call for all the readers of Usenet to tell Commodore their
opinons, ideas, and suggestions, be they on a management or hard/software
level.

On my UUCP site, I have set up an account for this 'project'. 
All correspondence should be directed to either 

	commodore@swamp.UUCP
	       - or -
	uunet!dalcs!swamp!commodore

Here's what I propose to do.

Once I get a load of suggestions (I'd like ~100 at least and I know there's more
than that out there on the net) I'll take them into WordPerfect on my Amiga
and make them look _official_, i.e. correct spelling, grammar, etc. 
I'll combine like articles, summarize lengthy drivelous ones, the whole
shebang. Then it goes off to a laser printer where I envelope it and send
it to Commodore. Presto -- all of Usenet's suggestions in a neat package.
I'll be including Usenet readership stats so C= can see how many people
they're dealing with (over 50,000 I believe). 

I will ask them for a reply which I can post to Usenet to tell everyone what
Commodore thinks of their ideas.


So if you like this idea -- make up a 1 to 2 paragraph suggestion for Commodore
(longer if you like) and mail it to  commodore@swamp.UUCP. If you don't like
it then too bad -- don't reply. :)

I expect at least 100 messages within the week. :)


--
 Michael Dinn, Sysop of the Moose's Swamp - Nova Scotia's largest Amiga BBS
      moose@swamp.UUCP * uunet!dalcs!swamp!moose * dinn@ug.cs.dal.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls)
Subject: Re: 040 and 486
Keywords: 68040,80486,486,040,benchmarks
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:05:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.195629.9933@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>The following are a series of benchmarks performed on a 25 MHz 040 with
>128K external cache and a 25 MHz 486 with 128K external cache.
>
>Benchmark	040 128K cache		486 128K cache
>
>Integer:
>gcc		13.8			13.8
>espresso	13.4			12.2
>li		15.5			16.8
>eqntott		9.8			11.0
>
>FP:
>spice2g6	13.1			8.8
>doduc		8.1			5.8
>nasa7		12.1			5.8
>matrix 300	11.5			9.5
>fpppp		13.4			7.0
>tomcatv		9.1			4.3
>
>These tests show what I have said before, that the 486 is marginally faster
>than the 040 at the same speed on integer, and that the 040 a little more
>than 1.5 times the speed of the 486 on FP, which means that the 50 MHz 486
>will be faster. 040's without caches, common on the Amiga, will do a little
>worse than the results shown here.

040s without caches are common on the Amiga?  On what planet?  I would love
to see 040s become common on the Amiga, with or without a cache.

Your benchmarks are meaningless without information about the type of OS
used, the architecture other than the cpu, the compiler used as well as
the compiler options, etc.  I hope that a 50MHz 486 will be faster, but 
that point proves that the 040 is superior at the same MHz.

The fastest cpu in the world does you little good when tied to the brain
dead PC architecture.  Toss the ISA buss, the goofy interrupts, the need
for 8086 and DOS compatibility, and the rest of the cheeze and you would
probably have a decent machine.

I don't think that many people will deny that the 486 is fast and probably
a decent cpu, but most will tell you that the machines that they reside in
are pieces of junk.

Skip Sauls                     //    Graduate Student & Instructor
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu    \X/     CS Department, University of Mississippi
From: jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH)
Subject: Nish Patel
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:08:33 GMT

To quote those obnoxious "Phantom of the Opera" ads, I could resist no
longer.  Recently there's been a new and vocal arrival to c.s.a.a.  His
name is Nish Patel.  He has set a new lower bound on cluelessness in this
group.

Some of his posts are so assinine and full or irrelevancies and howling
technical blunders that they are reminescent of that "I'm junking my 
Amiga to buy a Atari ST/VIC-20/Sinclair ZX81..." thread a couple of months
back.

But the sad part is that this guy seems to be serious.

Well at any rate, a hearty hat's off to Nish Patel for driving this news-
group even deeper into stupidity.


-- 
 Jerry Kuch (jerry@cs.mcgill.ca) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
 "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
  Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
                  --- M. Burns  "Treehouse of Horror II"
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:12219 comp.sys.amiga.games:6735 comp.sys.amiga.misc:8306 comp.sys.amiga.multimedia:798 comp.sys.amiga.graphics:3560 comp.sys.amiga.hardware:8592
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
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
Distribution: world
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:07:06 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1992Apr6.221833.19914@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>
>>I _know_ what V8086 mode is, and I don't recall asking you.  Please do
>>not answer questions nobody asked.  It is quite unlikely that we are
>>interested in your answer.
>>
>>However, now that you've brought it up, you can't use several programs
>>that run in V8086 mode together.
>>
>
>Then I guess my multitasking of 5 DOS apps, each running in V86 mode (under
>OS/2 2.0), is just an illusion?
>
>>
>>Try EMM386 or QEMM with Turbo 
>>Debugger 386, for example.  Nope...
>>
>
>These are OS-level programs that cannot co-exist due to *their* nature,
>not that of the CPU.  It's like trying to run two protected OS kernels
>on the same single-CPU machine.
>
>>
>>So much for the V8086 mode being useful for multitasking.
>>
>
>So much for your knowledge of what V86 mode is and how it's used.
>
>>
>>It has taken over 10 years for PCs to even standardize such things
>>as extended memory access.  The number of people who have the old
>>versions of many packages who won't bother to upgrade are going
>>to keep the PC in the dark ages, where it belongs IMO.
>>
>
>At least there is progress being made.  The previous extended memory
>access interface (VCPI) was used for a long time.  It was eventually
>deemed unacceptable because it compromises system integrity by allowing
>apps to wreak havoc with the hardware.  On the other hand, AmigaDOS does
>*nothing* to maintain system integrity; it totally ignores the problem.
>I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen an Amiga user scream,
>"I *hate* these games that take over the machine!".
>
>By the way, it has taken the OS-less *DOS* world over 10 years to
>standardize on extended memory access, not the PC world.  There are plenty
>of people running OS/2, UNIX and other OS's on their PC's.

And VPIX and DOSMerge have been running MSDOS apps on top of UNIX in
V8086 mode ever since the 386 came out.

--
Rick Kelly		Rick's Amiga		Framingham, Mass.

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
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 05:26:07 GMT
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN

In article <1992Mar30.231139.10967@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, hauer@roby.ecn.purdue.edu (Corey Hauer) writes:
|> Hello?  Blow the hell out of a quadra?  I think not.  They have the _same cpu_
|> and the quadra has accelerated video hardware.  You are blowing smoke.
|> 
	But does he have the NeXT graphics board? Also, the NeXT could
	very well be more efficiant at using the CPU than the Quadra.

|> Amiga OS does not have a compressed video standard like Quicktime.  Amiga OS
|> does not have a MIDI manager or Communications Toolbox.  Amiga OS does not
|> directly support 24-bit color or multiple screens on an infinite desktop.
|> Amiga OS also doesn't have Truetype or Postscript support.
|> 
	Quicktime is a standard? Funny, don't see it in my ANSI, IEEE or
	ISO standards list.

	What do you mean by MIDI manager?

	AmigaDOS has a pereferences tool for serial hardware and built in
	serial routines if that's what you mean by toolbox.

	I believe you misuse the term "screens". It means a completely
	different thing on Amiga's than it does on the Mac. 2.04 ADOS
	and beyond can have as big a desktop as you can hold in memory.

	Funny, our marketing people don't seem to be using the 24bit
	color modes for their work, could it be that 24 bit is more
	hype than substance? The people with Windows are also capable
	of using 24 bit color but seem to stick to 16 or 8. Most of us
	who use X rarely need more than 16 colors except when viewing
	GIF's...

	Mac doesn't have Compugraphic scaleable font capability. 2.04
	AmigaDOS has a general font scaler that doesn't preclude the
	use of Postscript or any other scalable font technology. Programs
	that need Postscript seem to support it quite well.

	You still haven't PROVEN the Amiga CAN'T run software as good
	as a Mac can. Only that Mac's have a seemingly longer list of
	Marketing bullets that few applications actually need to
	do their job.

		-Rob
From: lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 040 and 486_
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:45:29 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Apr12.215857.2813@ctr.columbia.edu>, jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
> In article <1992Apr12.215747.1@cc.helsinki.fi> lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>>
>>Please, stop writing your clueless postings as you do not seem to know
>>anything about what your talking about.
> 
> Ha!  And you do?!  Really Jarkko, you did *just* what Nish did.  You posted
> benchmarks which prove your point.  BTW, it's well known that HP's 040

Fuck you and read my message again. I did say that the benchmarks I provided
were not absolute truths of anykind as oppisite to what Nish says about his
benchmarks. I have never said that benchmarks tell you much at all and I only
provided those ones to show Nish that one can get allmost anykind of benchmark
results one wants.
	I did only prove the fact that benchmarks do not tell you the absolute
truth, but you seem to fail to see this too.

> machines do about twice as well on benchmarks as other 040 machines.  They
> obviously found a way to optimize their compilers to fool the benchmarks.

There are three things that made that HP machine superior to the 486 and to
other 040s: 1. the compiler seemed to detect benchmarks, 2. the compiler seems
to optimize for 68040 and probably does this job quite well (ecpecially when
compared to most other compilers), and 3. the HP machine had 32 MB of ram which
does help on some of those benchmarks alot.

> --
> +-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
> | 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                               |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
Jarkko Lindblad
lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi
From: Mike_Whalen@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Mike Whalen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom"
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:48:31 GMT
Organization: The Amiga GateWay BBS * New Orleans, La.

In a message dated Wed  8 Apr 92 08:16, Justin@mik.uky.edu (justin Sullivan
wrote:

> Postscript.. it's s de facto standard, but a number of people lately have
> been telling me that it chokes printers on complex output files -- NOT a
> feature! 

 JS> Then (with respect) they don't know what they're doing. If you have
 JS> very little  
 JS> RAM in a PostScript printer, it will choke on complex output. If you
 JS> have a  
 JS> very old printer (LaserWriter, LaserWriter Plus for instance) with
 JS> new  
 JS> software, it will probably choke anyway. If your software is at fault
 JS> (very  
 JS> likely. probably very common on the Amiga :), then switch software.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Just wanted to let you know that what you said up there was completely
uncalled for. You are just feuling arguments and being an arse by saying
that. Just don't you might like to know.


-- Via DLG Pro v0.991

  /-----  /\     /\    /      Fandom Activity Network Magazine
 /---    /--\   /  \  /    1384 Sigur Ave. Metairie, La.  70005
/       /    \ /    \/             Editor : Mike Whalen
                     For the BEST in Science Fiction/Fantasy FANDOM!
                               Voice Phone: (504)/837-5037
------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet:                  Mike_Whalen@agwbbs.new-orleans.la.us
UUCP:                             rex!agwbbs!Mike_Whalen
                                 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:05:32 GMT

jbono@tension.UUCP (John Bono) writes:

>2.  The 486 is *significantly* slower than the '040, *particularly* at
>floating point math.  This is due to the fact that the 486 has significant
>ties back to the 8088(note--I said 8088, *not* 8086).  The 8088 is an 8-bit
>chip.  This means that the 486 has to be run 8088 code.  In thirty two bit
>applications, the 040 is significantly faster because it need not worry about
>running 68K code, since the 68K had a 32-bit internal instruction set(like the
>386sx).  In addition, the '040 has a method of pipelining instructions which

Before you post things you do not understand, look at the facts some more.
First, how can you call the 8088 an 8-bit chip while calling the 68000 a
32-bit (or implying it with the refernce to 32-bit instruction set). The
8088 is a 16-bit chip wih a 8 bit external bus, just like the 68000 is
a 32 bit with 16-bit external bus. 
second, this is not nearly enough eveidence to claim that the motorola line
is faster, if you look at the instruction sets of the two, you will see
the Motorola chip is in a very sorry state.

>further amplified since the Amiga has very little OS overhead.  Actions that
>suck CPU time out of traditional computers like the PC and MAC are covered by
>the Amiga's custom chips, such as screen refresh, disk access, etc.  This is
>why most Amigas will consistently outperform systems with much more powerful
>CPUs, i.e. an A3000-16 will consistently outperform a Mac IIci, though the
>IIci has a more powerful CPU, and in most cases, an A3000 will outperform most
>486's or IIfx's under heavy multitasking, for the same reason.

Screen refreshes! you have to be joking! If the Amiga becomes a powerful
machine when doing a trivial chore like screen refreshes (compared to the
utility and ability of doing anything else a computer does), then it
obviously sucks when doing some serious work. Nobody takes screen
refresh into account when considering how powerful a computer is. As for
disk access, the same applies. The Amiga chipset only provides support for
floppy drives, not hard drives. The floppy drive speed is of no concern
to people doing any real work with a computer. You use a hard drive, not
a floppy. Unless the chipset is real magical and makes the floppy drive
faster than a hard drive and allows more megabytes and megabytes of storage
on a flopp,y which obviously is not the case, good floppy access doesn't
do squat for the power of the system. 

Nish Patel   nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: justin@graphlab.cc.uky.edu  (Justin Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Re: AMax/3000 vs. Low-Cost-Macs, Quadra...
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:40:02 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Mike Powell writes
> 
> 	
> 	Justin,
> 
> 	from reading your posting and then reading the "amax-user" side
> 	from the many posts following yours, it becomes rather clear that
> 	you know little of what you are talking about.
> 
> 	Get a clue.

Let me in on a little secret.. Ever used a REAL mac with REAL mac software  
(i.e., not MacPaint/Puke)..
--
*******************************************************************************
* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh>                      *
* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions.    *
*******************************************************************************
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 06:58:24 GMT
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN

In article <1992Apr1.001144.1642@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, espen@coos.dartmouth.edu (Espen H. Koht) writes:
|> since the beginning of time almost.  Remember that Postscript and the Apple
|> laserwriter used to be almost synonymous. It must be hard to admit that Amiga
|> OS has a *driver* (wow!) for a technology which was basically pushed into the
|> postion of leading font technology by Apple.
|>   
	Not hard at all. What happens to your seamless Mac when you put
	an HP PCL printer or Epson 9 pin printer on it? The printing system
	on the Amiga leaves it to a printer driver to decide how best to
	render an image on paper.

		-Rob
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: bdraschk@faui09.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Bernd Raschke)
Subject: Re: What to do about CBM
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, Germany
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:52:17 GMT

I don't consider it very smart to propagate something like this. 
Currently C= is making good money with small computers (game consoles).
It costs lot of money to produce a high end machine (advertising, 
productions etc.).
It they know that nobody will buy it, they won't produce it.
You would get the opposite of what you want!
Ciao,
	Arty

--
Bernd 'The Real Arthur!' Raschke           |Only // 
bdraschk@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de    | \\ // Amiga
hartmannstr. 129 8520 erlangen 09131 32456 |  \X/ makes it possible
           "Bonn haette Regierungssitz bleiben muessen *sigh*"