HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet ext 7605)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Commodore Computers
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 19:36:28 GMT
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.


Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP (Paula Lieberman) writes:
>... he researched the cost of doing video on Mac versus video on Amiga for
>someone, and it was literally half the cost to get an Amiga with a Video
>Toaster than to get a Mac with framegrabber and video output suitable for
>cable TV which did less and had worse image quality than an Amiga/Toaster
>combination..... 

Yup, this is basically true.  I have chosen "equvilent video hardware" as
far as quality of output.  The prices I know of for "equivilant"
cards for the various machines are:

1) Toaster:  2500 dollars, needs an Amiga 2000, preferably with 5 Meg ram?
	and a hard disk (100 Meg?) for a total cost of about 5000 dollars
	or so new.  This does not include anything above a 68000.

2) MAC: I am shakey on this one, but the TrueVision NuVista which will do
	24 bit color with 8 bit alpha channel, only 1 video input (RGB/NTSC/SVHS)
	for about 3500 or so, not including software.  Add that to a Mac II for
	about 3000 or so and you climb to > 6500 dollars.  Again, this is 
	really stretching my memory as far as prices are concerned.

3) IBM:  Again, going with TrueVision Targa +64 for 24 bit color,
	and 8 bit alpha channel (provides transparency over video) 1 input
	source (RGB/NTS/SVHS) for 2500, an extra 1200 for software, and 
	a 386 running MS-DOS for 1500 drives the price to $6200 or so.

4) Iris Indigo?  $ 9500+ for a system that will go to video tape.
	Might be worth it, I don't know.

However, a 386 will be faster than a 68000, so for performance, you will want
to install a good accelerator card into the Toaster machine.

Now, comparisons between the video systems, This is from memory,
I can't find my data sheets for either the toaster or the truevision
cards.

1) Toaster, allows 4 inputs and 2 graphics screens of 24 bit color.
	Can switch between any of these inputs via software, and will
	allow you to overlay a graphics screen ontop of the video
	source of your choice.  However, at this point in time,
	it is either source or graphics, no transparency allowed.
	All 4 video inputs must be synced to input #1.

2) TrueVision hardware:  1 graphics screen (24 bit) and 1 video input.
	Thus, you cannot switch between multiple video inputs, however,
	with the 8 bit alpha channel you can provide overlays with transparency
	to give you see through graphics.  This card can also be used 
	for 1024 x 768 video, but not at NTSC frequencies, and not at 24 bit
	color (16 bit color for Targa +64 board).

Whch one makes a better system for video?  I don't know, depends on what
you want need to do and what kind of deal you can wrangle on the machines.

I unfortunately don't know about other cards on the market for NTSC Video,
just these 2.

Just FYI.

brianm
-- 
             "I am NAN!  I am a free man!"	--	paraphrased

brianm@sco.com  or uunet!sco!brianm                    Speaking for Myself
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:12245 rec.games.video:10509
From: soh@andromeda.trl.OZ.AU (Kam Hung Soh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Amiga vs. MegaDrive (Genesis) (Re: Lets get focused now....why the 3000 beats the Quadra)
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:58:41 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk (Marcus Harvey) writes:

>The Amiga 500 is about twice the price of the Sega MegaDrive in the UK but
>in the long term Amiga games probably work out at about half the cost of
>MD games, and they are more prolific and available here.
                             ^^^^^^^^

So, the rumours are true!  Now I know why there are so many Amigas in
Britain ....

Amigas reproduce faster than any other computer! 

(B->) (Humour, for the smiley impaired.)

Regards,

---
Soh, Kam Hung, Network Management Research,     |  h.soh@trl.oz.au  
TRL, POB 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia  |  +61 3 253 6638
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:   The Under $10K Unix Workstation!
Distribution: world
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:50:49 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1992Apr6.114450.22359@nic.unh.edu> pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:
>In article <p9ztbrc@rpi.edu> borres@aix.rpi.edu (Steven D. Borrelli) writes:
>>>Steve Jobs seems to like it that way.  NeXTStep for 486 clones is going to
>>>be about $2500 dollars.
>>>
>>It's going to be $1000 for the basic version and $2500 for the developer
>>version. That's about the same price as Solaris. 
>
>I thought Solaris was supposed to cost $795 for the basic version
>(that may be with a limited user license, though - I'm not sure)?  The
>neat thing about Solaris 2.0 is that it comes with all the C libraries
>and header files, so you can go out and grab a GCC binary and have a
>compiler for free without having to buy the devlopment kit just to get
>the libraries.

>>After paying lic. fees to AT&T and Adobe, UNIX is going to be expensive. 
>>Price Commodore's UNIX offering or any other one (like AU/X).

>I think it's more a function of volume.  A UNIX license costs, what,
>$100K or so?  That's not a lot of money for a large company.  IBM
>spent hundreds of millions on OS/2 2.0 (maybe billions), and you can
>buy a copy for $49 (Windows upgrade price).

>I don't see why there couldn't be a good UNIX package for $200 or less
>(for any theoretical machine for which sufficient demand exists).  Or
>does AT&T charge a per-copy royalty?  That might be a problem.

There will be three such offerings:

Coherent 386 - Mark Williams Company - SYSV compatible - less than $200
Unixlite - USL (AT&T) and Novell - approximately $200
Minix 386 - available now as PD binary, in a source release soon - $150

All three of the above will have the ability to run X11 or some other
windowing package.

If USL does it right, they could probably end up with something that they
could port to 68K machines.

You have to remember that UNIX is not really a single user operating
system.  On the Amiga or the PC you can add terminals and users up to
the limits of your license.

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

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
From: pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro)
Subject: Re:   C= policy (Re: Apple problems "Home computer")
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 14:00:42 GMT

In article <root.01df@rkamiga.UUCP> root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>The bottom end of the PC market is so low now, that quality assurance is
>starting to suffer.  There are 386/486 pc clones being sold that can't run
>in protected mode due to timing and other problems.  The boards are being
>designed and slapped into systems as fast as they can make them.  The
>result is very cheap boxes that can run MSDOS, and that's it.  They are
>being sold at such a low margin, and there are so many companies trying
>to undercut each other, that there will soon be a point where small clone
>companies will start dropping like flies.  The prices will ease back up
>to the DELL or Gateway level.

That's fine with me.  Gateway-level prices are quite good.

I wouldn't class Gateway with Dell, BTW.  Dell is what I'd call a
"premium" dealer, and they price accordingly.  Gateway is much
cheaper, but still has good quality (though they're by no means
perfect).  You can get a Gateway 486-33 ISA with ATI Ultra graphics
accelerator, 8MB RAM, 210 MB IDE, etc. etc., for about $2800.  Similar
deals are available from other vendors.  A similar system from Dell
would probably be in the $4k-$5k range, but you will probably get
better support, possibly better quality, etc.

As for the ultra-cheap cloners, yes...they come and go with great
frequency.  I'd stay away from them, but they aren't your only choice.

>An Intel box that can only run MSDOS would be of little use to me, as
>I don't use MSDOS.

Well, it will probably run Windoze also (big whoopee! :-) :-)

Paul


-- 
Paul Secinaro            | Synthetic Vision and Pattern Analysis Lab
pss1@kepler.unh.edu      | Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
p_secinaro@unhh.unh.edu  | University of New Hampshire
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: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:39:27 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Rick Kelly writes
> In article <1992Apr6.195635.10380@ms.uky.edu> justin@graphlab.cc.uky.edu   
(Justin Sullivan) writes:
> >Rick Kelly writes
> >> Apple literature describes A/UX as being SVR2 in it's literature.  Are you
> >> saying that they lie about it?.  And posters on comp.unix.aux talk about
> >> things that are missing that were included in SVR3.  POSIX has been around
> >> for at least four years.  VMS is very close to being POSIX compliant.
> >
> >A/UX 3.0 is *SVR4*.
> 
> Perhaps.  But that secret is being kept very quiet in comp.unix.aux.
> 
> And I still say "kludge" when I see a system that has to boot UNIX from
> another OS.  In order to use A/UX you have to boot MacOS, and launch
> A/UX from there.  It must be hell doing autoboot after a power outage.

Not under A/UX 3.0..

--
*******************************************************************************
* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh>                      *
* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions.    *
*******************************************************************************
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: 8 Apr 92 22:35:35 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <jbickers.05pb@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (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?

Maybe it stands for Almost UniX? :-)


--
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: Face it, Amiga's are no good!
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:40:20 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Cheradenine Zekalwe writes
>      The fact is, by posting such an inflamatory statement you prove your-
> self to be no better than the near sighted people who claim that an Amiga
> is the be all to end all of computers.  I, personally, own an Amiga, but
> more than likely I'll expand my horizons and include an MS-DOS machine in
> the near future.  Why?  Because each has its relative merits.  So rather
> than discard one for the other I'll just have both.

Good idea.. I like NeXTs, but I don't find them to be very reliable.. I like  
Macs more. I love to play games on PCs (but not much else).. I like the  
SPARCstation 1+ I use a lot.. Might get a nice SGI Indigo.. With all of them,  
it's easy to get lots of work done. With one of them? I dunno.. It wouldn't be  
as much fun.

--
*******************************************************************************
* "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: tlynchhuw@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Amax on a 3000 questions...
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 07:51:07 GMT



I have some questions about AMAX (or is it AMAX II), the macintosh
emulator for the Amiga. Please answer honestly.....

(where I say AMAX, I mean the latest release)

does AMAX support color monitor emulation? If not will future releases and
if so when will they come out?

I've heard that the emulation on a stock 500 gives the same performance as 
a MAC SE, is this correct? How fast is a 25Mhz A3000 (ie faster than a Mac II
fx or what)?

Does AMAX run System 7?

Does AMAX run system 7 fully? ie virtual ram etc.

What mac programs will AMAX not run?

When AMAX is run on a 68030 machine does it use the 68030 fully or just 
stick to the 68000 instructions? Does the MAC operating system see the 
68030 and use it fully?

How much ram would an amiga need to give the mac emulation about 3 meg of
free ram?

How legal is AMAX? I hear you need Mac ROM's which may be legal or the ROMS
on disk which I'm sure isn't.

What other things should I know before I go and do a deal that I haven't 
mentioned above?

Huw
- Thanks in advance to any replies.
From: joe@cbmvax.commodore.com (Joe O'Hara - Product Assurance)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  "Room" for Windows
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:58:48 GMT
Reply-To: joe@cbmvax.commodore.com (Joe O'Hara - Product Assurance)
Distribution: na
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <mbs.0ez6@adastra.cvl.va.us> adastra!mbs@Virginia.Edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.191055.14806@watson.ibm.com> sck@watson.ibm.com (Scott C. Kennedy) writes:
>>I'm afraid that Commodore doesn't own any patents or copyrights to the idea of
>>pre-emptive multi-tasking, but they were the first company to successfully sell
>>a low-end multi-tasking machine. For examples of other multi-tasking boxes, look
>>at Mutlics, Unix, OS/9, VM, MVS, VMS, and others. All of which predate the
>>Amiga.
>
>Sheesh. Look at the Burroughs B5000. Which predates all of the above. And has
>had an uninterrupted upgrade path for the last 30 years...

Yes, and even the B5000 was predated by a Honeywell system (800, I think).

-- 
==========================================================================
  Joe O'Hara                ||      Disclaimer: I didn't say that!
  Commodore Electronics Ltd ||
  Product Assurance         || "I never lie when I have sand in my shoes."
  Systems Evaluation Group  ||             - Geordi LeForge, Star Trek TNG
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: AppleEvents, how to they work?
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:44:57 GMT

jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes:

>Quoted from <torrie.702441620@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie):

>> ObligAdv:  How does AREXX know which applications support what
>> messages?  For example, when you're writing a script, can you tell
>> whether an application handles a particular message, and whether

>    By reading the docs for that application. So if you replace one app.
>    with another, and it uses different command names to achieve the same
>    thing, you need to edit your scripts to suit.

  Wouldn't it be better to standardise messages between applications?
I think if you really want to get lots of people using/writing scripts
(rather than just privileged programmers), the messages between apps
should be as consistent as possible.
  I read in another message that there is some standardisation in the
style guide, but how far is this taken?  Are there standards
for things like word processors (e.g. changeFont message), spreadsheets, 
spelling checkers etc?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.                     NZ for the America's Cup!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jyoung@isis.cs.du.edu (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Wild rumor, potential for massive sea change in Amiga world...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 03:43:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.182839.21215@ra.msstate.edu> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls) writes:
>
>How is this different from a Bahamian company owning the company that produeces
>the computer that they own?  And as to losing users in the U.S., big deal,
>there are not that many in the first place.

If you didn't see the FRONTLINE show and NBC shows about Japan, then you
dont know about how Japanese 'purify' company by cleaning out many people
first.  I don't hear about Bahama company doing that.

>How many users would stick with the Amiga if Apple bought them out, especially
>when there are lots of Amiga owners who dislike the way that Apple does things.

MUCH more people would sty with Commodore because at least we heard of
Apple AUX but have you heard of NINITENDO Unix????

>Get a clue!  Why in the world would Amiga owners sell their machines and
>purchase a machine from a company that has less of a future than C=?
>
Huh?? Someone just put up report Znet that said in Canada IBM is number
one, Apple second, Atari third, compaq forth, and other (Tandy?) fifth.
Commodore NOT even listed!!  I read in Europe Atari is now second too.
Commodore is FIRST in Germany but how long will people buy Amiga and C64
when Falcons arrive??!

Amigas BEST magazine called INFO is DEAD so soon after AWTJ!!!!  As long
as Gould and Ali hide out in Bahamsa and sip drinks from woman with big
coconuts then everybody is afraid Amiga is finished!!

>>By Winter, Atari will be offering everything that the Amiga has anyways.
>
>After 6 years I would certainly hope so.
>
All reports show Atari Falcon will have much more than even A3000.
Does Amiga 3000 have..
50 MHZ 68030
DSP 56001 16 bit STEREO CD quality 
640x480 up to 1280x960 at 60HZ, 64K-16Million colors
1.44 Megabyte floppy
SCSI Hard drive
LAN
MIDI
..and price of around $1000!!?  The Falcon BLOWS past Amiga so fast!
Even MAC Quadra is blown out!!
WAKE UP PEOPLE IN BAHAMA!!!
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM is a game machine company
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga GRn V1.29 4/10/92 (Beta) by Mike Schwartz
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:37:38 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <46465@dime.cs.umass.edu> barrett@astro.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett) writes:
>In article <mykes.2549@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>Isn't the A3000T just a repackaged A3000?  What's it got besides more
>>slots and a bigger power supply and a nicer case?
>
>	A louder fan. :-(
>
>	Actually, it has the same number of slots as the A3000.  But it
>does have more internal expansion space for 3.5" and 5.25" devices,
>and that's what made it attractive to me.
>

This makes it attractive to me, too.  Considering that I have 3 external
SCSI boxes taking up space.  Also, it is nice to be able to get the damn
computer off the desk!!! :)

>	A full review of the A3000T is coming to c.s.a.reviews sometime
>in the next 2 weeks.
>


AWESOME.

--
Author of Amiga GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle,
and Genesis Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: cstuckless@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Video Machine
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:10:29 GMT

In article <kdarling.702859259@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>, kdarling@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:
> 
>  
>    "The Video Machine can best be understood as a high-end Video Toaster.
>  It takes standard video inputs and allows for full frame-by-frame editing.
>    "Unlike the Toaster, which runs only on the Commodore Amiga and requires
>  the NTSC video found in the US, the Video Machine is an add-in board
>  for PCs and Macintoshes that also handles European PAL or SECAM inputs,
>  allowing the editor to mix-and-match them."  
> 
> So says Newsbytes about the COMDEX debut of Munich-based FAST Electronic's
> "Video Machine", an addon video editing, titling and special effects board.
> The system is based on a new Philips video controller chip.  Other quotes:
> 
> The Video Machine is able to cut and mix live video.  It requires no extra
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> hardware such as TBCs or editing decks.  The video output and both inputs
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   I'd be weary of any video switcher/effects generator that claims it 
doesn't need a stable source (a time base corrected signal). I'd like 
to know who wrote the article in "Newsbytes" - was it a reviewer or 
the company who makes it?
-- 
  
Colin Stuckless          \  The bottleneck for every computer 
FutureVision Ltd          \  platform is the mind's ability to invent 
CStuckless@kean.ucs.mun.ca \  creative new applications for the system 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: EISA vs. ZorroIII
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 06:55:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.200732.6343@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) writes:
>
>Bi
>>EISA will go quite fast, as in 32 MHz, until you plug in one of the old AT
>>bus cards that are so common.  The standard speed for the ISA (AT) bus is
>>8.3 MHz.  Many ISA systems have the option of running the bus faster than
>
>I NEVER claimed EISA will see such performance increases with ISA cards.
>I fully realize you will need EISA cards for performance.

You wanted to know where the 8 MHz figure came from - I told you, that's all.

>And you do not need EISAcards for everything. What would be the point of
>an EISA card for things like S/p/g port, modem, or anything besides
>harddrive controllers and a few very special cases. Because of the 
>compatibility with ISA, you do not have to spend more money for something
>that would be overkill.

As far as I know, EISA has only one clock speed for the entire bus - that is,
one slow card will slow down the entire bus.  I'm no expert on EISA, though,
so I'd appreciate it if someone who knows what they're talking about could
clarify this.  I do seem to remember that one of the good features of Zorro
III is the ability to run different cards at different speeds.


-- 

David Meiklejohn                  | Internet : davidme@qdpii.comp.qpdi.oz.au
Computer Systems Officer, QDPI    | Fax      : +61 70 92 3593
Mareeba, Australia                | Voice    : +61 70 92 1555
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: charliec@Everest.Tandem.COM (Charlie Comstock)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc., Cupertino CA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:33:09 GMT

In article <7192@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.170302.12128@cs.mcgill.ca> jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH) writes:

>> [lines removed...]

>I did this a few years back, Manx C 3.6 (I think) vs MicroSoft C 5.0.  I ran
>the Manx on an A2000, MSC on a 386 Zenith.  The A2000 had 2 floppies and
>3MB RAM, the PC had 80MB HD, 5MB RAM, and was 16 MHZ.  I compiled Tony
>Richardson's PLPlot library on both.  Guess which one was faster?  The
>Amiga!!  I think the main reason was on the Amiga, you could make the
>compiler resident using ARes or some such.  On DOS, I have never seen
>a mainstream compiler that could be used as a TSR, so you have to 
>load the compiler for each file you are compiling.  What a joke!
>
>Bill Murphy               | Old Home Cottage Cheese:  The only cottage 
>			  | cheese that's not made from formaldehyde, 
>murphy@physics.purdue.edu | arsenic, or rodent parts.

Are you saying that Manx C 3.6 compiled faster than MicroSoft C or that 
the program you compiled on each executed faster on the Amiga?  If you
are interested in compiler speed comparisons perhaps you should have been
using Borland C on the PC as I believe it compiles a LOT faster than
MicroSoft C.  Also do you have the actual times so we could have a
quantitative comparison rather than a qualitative one?

Charlie Comstock

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy