HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:37:49 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Gregory R Block (bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu) wrote:
:
: >But Greg, Windows is NOT fubar!  It works great, and has more support
: >and better applications than AmigaOS ever will.
:
: Support and apps does NOT make it a better OS, in any respect.  If
: that were true, MS-DOS would be wonderful.
:

It IS true, and it is precisely why MS-DOS is *not* wonderful -- it provides
insufficient support and inadequate applications.

:
: So, the point is that a modern OS has NOTHING to do with DIG, VM, or
: any other nonsense you'd like to throw in.  Those are nice features,
: but they're not intrinsic to a modern operating system.
:

Oh no.  Only the features that are in YOUR favorite OS qualify as "intrinsic
to a modern operating system".  How convenient.

:
: >As of 1987, MS-DOS does *NOT* provide sufficient support for modern
: >applications.  The real-mode memory limitation is one reason.  No device
: >independence is another.
:
: Alright, you got me on the real-mode mem part, I forgot about that...
: But do remember that device independence does not have an intrinsic
: part to play in a modern OS design.
:

Sure it does.  Without device independence, the API is inconsistent, and
consistency is always a goal in modern OS design.

:
: What is wrong with it?  I don't like the way anything is layered.  I
: don't like the system of calls, I think it lacks a good "hierarchy" in
: all-too-many places.
:

So that's it?  You keep making claims of how bad Windows is, and all you can
come up with for proof is a bunch of opinions that aren't necessarily shared
by a lot of people?

:
: Have you ever seen any API other than Windows'?
:

Plenty.  For strictly GUI API's, I'd say InterViews is the best I've seen,
followed by X/Xt, OS/2 PM, Windows, MacOS, AmigaOS, Atari GEM.  For best
overall API, I nominate OS/2.  DISCLAIMER: I have not worked with NeXTSTEP.

:
: How much programming have you done under the Windows API?
:

Plenty, and it's easily one of the best I've seen.  There are many calls
and sub-API's, so you need to have a reference at your side, but IMHO, it's
all organized very nicely.

: Greg
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
From: justin@hybris.UUCP (Justin Richards)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  Comdex/Quicktime released for the PC
Distribution: world
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:20:53 CST
Organization: FEC Software Programmers, INC.

In article <1992Dec31.180140.4836@pcnntp.apple.com> Dale_Adams@gateway.qm.apple.com (Dale Adams) writes:
>In article <Bzqw4K.3n8@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>> All you can speak of is the top-of-the-line mac!  So unless you
>> spend the max, you can't get decent animation, eh?
>
>No, I never said this.  You did. I specifically said otherwise.
>
>> If you're trying to get the maximum frame rate possible, A
>> Macintosh is not what you want to use.
>
>No, and it's not an Amiga, either.
>
>> >(Although using QT 1.5 I can playback 320 x
>> >240 animations at 30 fps on a 16 bit/pixel screen.)
>>
>> Using only the most expensive mac.  Go ahead, pay apple for the
>> priveledge of doing what an Amiga 600 can do better.
>
>The A600 has 16 bit/pixel video?  Really?  Even a Mac LC has that.
>

The A600 costs an average of $359.  (prices I have seen, including my
local dealer)  How much is a Mac lc?

>> And the fact that you need an 040 to do simple 30fps anims indicates
>> you're not using the right computer.
>
>No.  Re-read my post.  I specifcally said slower Macs were capable of 30
>fps animations.
>
>- Dale Adams

--

---

                      ---==* Justin Richards *==---
Hybris.UUCP  Amiga500  9600 baud      UUCP:  ..mmedia!hybris!justin
INET:  br365@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu



Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:35:28 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Jack Radigan (jprad@faatcrl.faa.gov) wrote:
:
: >If you turned off Protected Mode, you were running 3.0, WITHOUT FastDisk.
: >This explains why the machine crashed when you allegedly zeroed out the
: >DOS kernel -- Windows was still trying to use DOS for disk access.
:
:   Does using FastDisk redirect a LoadModule() call in Windows?  That
: function relies on the MS-DOS function 4Bh, Code 00h parameter block.
:

Apparently, although Windows includes a general-purpose plug-in-filesystem
interface, FastDisk itself is only used for the virtual memory implementation
in Windows; it uses DOS for normal file access.  This is so that Windows can
work with DOS-based filesystem redirectors, such as the currently-popular
on-the-fly disk compression products.

BTW, talking about plug-in filesystems, have any of you heard about the
file system in the upcoming GNU UNIX?  Apparently, it will support "mountable
programs".  For example, there will be a simple way of mounting "tar" archives
as directories, and then doing ls, cp, etc.  By "mounting" some future
versions of "tar" and "compress", for example, you will have the equivalent
of on-the-fly disk compression under UNIX.  Sounds pretty neat to me.

:
:   Also, what about the DOS3Call() function that is used to issue MS-DOS
: 21h interrupt function calls?
:

What about it?  I've never used it in my Windows programming.

:
:   Face it, Windows *needs* MS-DOS...
:

Of course it does, but only for MS-DOS compatibility.  It's just the way
they market the thing.  Windows is an OS, however, and the way the split
it up and package it doesn't change what it is.

:
:   -jack-
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Subject: Re: Advocacy? What do you want for the Amiga?
X-Spook-Fodder: hero heroin tree shrub bush birth life death FBI CIA NSA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:34:35 GMT

In <C0qGJE.FAC@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>In article <1itb81INN3ts@uwm.edu> bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11.105552.13510@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au> davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) writes:
>>>Thanks for the support (I'm the typical Amigoid referred to above  :-).
>>
>>EEK!  Marc's quote was supposed to be in there somewhere.  Damn.
>>Basically, he said something to the effect of you having the vision of
>>a bat for not wanting a hardwired works package that would cripple
>>productivity under a multitasking OS.

>   Which I never said, of course.  Conveniently losing my quote so that you
>can put words in my mouth.  

Pot Calling The Kettle "Black" Award with Gray Pruneleaf Cluster!!

nevermind how you conveniently lose entire threads when the evidence
mounts against you [see thread: inadequate power supply on A1200; see
thread: CD-ROM is the future (don't forget those double sided discs, marc!);
see subthread: marc is challenged to produce some code, *any* code he's
programmed - dead silence!; and of course the obligatory "CDTV/AmigaVision
is Dead!!!" threads]

Marc Barrett: official spokesperson for the MacIntosh personal computer -
"hey, i'll run one inside my [*#%$$!]amiga, but i'll never buy a real one!"

-- 
paul theodoropoulos     damiel@netcom.com     (hooools@well.sf.ca.us)

"Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will have
 neither" - Benjamin Franklin
From: martin@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (Psigon Matrix....do you DOUBT us??)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does reading this group make you depressed? The story of a victim.
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:26:41 GMT
Reply-To: martin@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU
Organization: St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN

In article <C03GDA.HoJ@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.210438.6678@klaava.Helsinki.FI> lindblad@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jarkko Lindblad) writes:
>>Marc N. Barrett (barrett@iastate.edu) wrote:
>>And where did you say software?
>
>   I stated that there is no Amiga CD-ROM or (good) productivity software 
>available for the Amiga.  Perhaps my qualifying productivity software with the
>word "good" confused people.  I did this because the Amiga does have some
>productivity software available, but no really good productivity software
>available.  Perhaps if I had stated "there is no CD-ROM or productivity 
>software available for the Amiga", leaving out the word "good", it would 
>have made more sense.

So SuperBase Pro 4 doesn't count?

  But then people would have countered by naming apps
>like Final Copy which are productivity apps, but not very good productivity
>apps.
>
>---
>| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
>--------------------------------------------------


Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screeeemmmmmin fast 4000/040..YEEEEEEHA!!          X-ASOCC (CBM Blew that one)
          Jim Martin   MATRIX -- If it's made, we sell it. Almost.
  -----(612) 656-9693--                         MARTIN@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU
      We're almost done with the Cray module for the EmPlanT.  :) heh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: abuhr@owlnet.rice.edu (Aaron M. Buhr)
Subject: Re: HELP--AMIGA OR IBM PC CLONE?
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:15:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.060109.29758@ra.msstate.edu> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.200419.13617@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>Andreas Stenmark (c92andst@odalix.ida.liu.se) wrote:
>>:
>>: Intel has never been in the front line of microprocessor development. And
>>: that's a fact.
>>
>>No, it's not a fact; it's your opinion.  Please state it as such.
>
>The pot is calling the kettle black again...

      Wasn't there a saying about "the log in one's own eye," or "people
in glass houses?"  :)


Aaron Buhr
abuhr@owlnet.rice.edu
From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: More BS from -MB-
Date: 5 Jan 93 05:37:33 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1ib0iiINN3cb@phakt.usc.edu> dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie) writes:
>How would you feel about a car that looked really great, and had an engine?
>Isn't that what we should be striving for? Why try and justify dings instead
>of fix them?

And for a Macintosh reference:

Why even BOTHER taking all of the dings out of the body when it has
trouble going down the street, your carb is trashed, and your
power-steering is flakey?  Cars like that aren't something you run,
they're something you fix.

The Amiga has a lot of dings to fix.  The mac needs a new engine.

Greg


--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Our father, who art in Iowa, Hollow be thy head, Thy ideas run    :)
(:  Thy will be done, At Commodore as it is at Apple"  -Dan Barrett   :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: () :) :) :) Wubba, the Dark Angel :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
Subject: Re: Advocacy? What do you want for the Amiga?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:09:01 GMT

In article <1it7m9INN3js@uwm.edu> bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>>	In particular, I hope, student bundles.  But C/A has other priorities
>>	that I think should come first.  Their print drivers/printing method
>>	leaves a lot to be desired.  They need to get out RTG because the
>>	latest and greatest chipset is best described as "adequate".  They
>
>Sounds like you're going to be out of gripes, soon.  :)

   HA!  That'll be the day!  How is Commodore going to improve the printing of
outline fonts when the OS lacks even the barest of font-substitution features
to make improvements possible?  Unfortunately, outline font support has been
left entirely up to the developers, and developers have a TERRIBLE track record
of supporting outline fonts.  Look at Final Copy and Final Copy II, that do
not support CompuGraphic fonts at all, and instead support a little-known font
format with no shareware fonts available for it.  Or look at programs such as
'Notebook' by Black Belt, that has graphics that look good on the screen but
look really HORRIBLE when prited out.  Why?  Because the program prints its
results on the printer at the resolution of the screen.  (If a Mac developer
ever produced something like this for the Mac, that developer would be 
crucified.  But Amiga owners seem perfectly willing to accept garbage such as
this.  Strange...)

   As for RTG, its eventual release will be no panacea for the Amiga. 
Commodore will have simply finally caught up with where the Macintosh was
in 1987, where Windows was three years ago, and where OS/2 was last year.
RTG is a beginning, not an end.  With RTG in place, the Amiga would still
lack the applications to take advantage of it.  And applications are 
everything in the personal computer industry.

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, I just think that a computer grafted on top of another computer
is a kludge.  It has nothing to do with the AGA chipset." -- me
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:42:30 EST
From: <LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM does it again... 23 watt p.s. for A1200?!?
Distribution: world

In article <rkushner.09t4@sycom.mi.org>, rkushner@sycom.mi.org (Ronald Kushner)
says:
>
>In an article, damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos) writes:
>
>>>Finally, consider any extra power to accomodate PCMCIA
>>>peripherals, which are even less likely to have their own power supply than

PCMCIA is designed for laptops which have power comsumption limitations.
Some people just don't know what they are talking about.  Typically
laptop owners having to replace a battery every few hours.

>>gee, a PCMCIA modem perhaps? five watts, max.

>If it was poorly designed. Hayes makes a 2400 baud modem that runs off the

A badly designed modem wouldn't be a PCMCIA modem.  Fitting all that parts
into such a tiny `pace would prettyy mean a specially designed chip - not
the off the shelf components for noname modems.   The chip manufacturers
know what they are doing.

K. C. Lee
Elec. Eng. Grad. Student
From: wille@egr.msu.edu (Jeffrey Wille)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: How I use my A3000
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:34:09 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University, College of Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: eecae.ee.msu.edu

With all this discussion going on about whether people use Amigas for 
accomplishing useful things or for playing games, I thought you might 
find it interesting what I use mine for.

I am finishing up my doctorate in Mechanical Engineering and I've used
my 3000 exclusively for my experimental and academic work.  It has 
worked so well for me that I have never regretted choosing it as my 
platform.  I use it for 16 channel, 12 bit data acquisition, microscope 
image acquisition, 4-axis motion control, 3-D image analysis, process 
control, preparation of papers and visual aids, and for titling videotapes.

The greatest strength of the Amiga for my application is its very fast
and robust multitasking capability.  I regularly have it acquire series of
images from the microscope (optical cross-sections), assemble them into 
animations (3-D images), pass them to my 3-D image analysis software, and 
control the motors which position the microscope stage and control the 
focus.  And it lets me evaluate the results as they are completed so that 
I can make adjustments to the process.  AND, I can still sit here and read 
the news and write papers with no decrease in the responsiveness of the 
system.  I run it like this 24 hrs/day with no crashes, no problems.  
I love it.   

Interprocess communication and realtime multitasking make the Amiga ideal
for data acquisition, process control and all sorts of scientific apps.

	-Jeff Wille
From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Real Time OS (was: To VM or not to VM?)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 20:39:18 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <C0GrEJ.3z2@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>   VM would not necessarily have to go in ROM, and would not necessarily 
>take very long to make a standard part of the Amiga OS.  If this GigaMem
>really is what people say it is, Commodore could buy it, make any necessary
>changes, and package it with the Amiga OS. 

It would very likely be a disk-based library, but there would be
"hooks" for it all over in the rom libraries, which would take up lots
of space.  You'd probably have to add stuff to exec.library...

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

I thought Commercial Developers did just that.

Greg


--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Our father, who art in Iowa, Hollow be thy head, Thy ideas run    :)
(:  Thy will be done, At Commodore as it is at Apple"  -Dan Barrett   :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: () :) :) :) Wubba, the Dark Angel :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:10:18 GMT

In article <73347@cup.portal.com> TomK@cup.portal.com (Tom R Krotchko) writes:
>>As soon as multitasking was feasible (with the advent of the 286) IBM
>>started work on OS/2, the multitasking OS for it.  The amiga was not an
>>influence.
>
>I know you like to be accurate, so it was actually Microsoft that
>started the development work on OS/2. They continued until IBM took
>over the development with version 1.3 of OS/2. Then Microsoft and
>IBM decided to part ways.
>
>Also, Multitasking was feasible in personal computers several years
>before the 80286.  AT&T had a version of Unix for the 68010 about
>6 or 7 years ago.
>

I know you like to be accurate too, so: IBM commissioned work on OS/2
and did much of the OS design.

6 or 7 years ago is not before the 80286.  And was this 68010 based
computer truly "personal?"  Did it have the same resources as other
computers of the day, or was it a super powered-1 MB of memory monster!



Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:43:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.170315.8297@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Donald R Lloyd (don@chopin.udel.edu) wrote:
>
>:      MicroSoft wanted to use a version of BASIC as the integrating language
>: ofr OS/2.  Someone brought in some Amigas to show what could be done with
>: AREXX, and MS conceded; REXX became part of OS/2.
>
>That's hilarious.  IBM invented REXX, but they had to bring in an Amiga
>to show it off.  What a joke.

Excuse me?  Are you saying you don't believe this, or what?  IBM wanted to
illustrate how applications could be made to work together IN PRACTICE, through
REXX as an interapplication control and macro language.  Now, other than the
Amiga, what could they possibly use to show REXX's potential?  Sure, they
invented it - on mainframes.  Sure, PC implementations were available.  But,
they didn't accomplish what IBM was trying to demonstrate.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that some things have been done well on
the Amiga?


-- 
David Meiklejohn (davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au)
 - PC's, Unix, and networks by day, Amigas by night...
Currently residing in Mareeba, Far North Queensland, Australia
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
Subject: Re: Comdex/Quicktime released for the PC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:58:31 GMT
Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc.

In article <1992Dec31.175534.4724@pcnntp.apple.com> Dale_Adams@gateway.qm.apple.com (Dale Adams) writes:
>In article <BzqvGB.3Ht@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>> Again, what is the point?  Your own posting indicates that QT only BEGINS
>> to provide entry-level animation (30 fps 320x240 ... w-o-w) on the top
>> of the line macintoshes?  It is quite pitiful, actually.
>> 
>> In other words, whatever it does, it needs to do less of it, because
>> the underlying graphics a5rchitecture is antiquated and slow.  The
>> QT facility fails to provide adequate animation on even the average mac
>> and it is a statement about how little the Mac can accomplish in 
>> real-time work.
>
>If QuickTime were the only means of providing animation on a Mac,  I'd 
>agree with you.  If the Amiga had software remotely approaching what QT's 
>doing that was running faster than QT on a Mac, I'd agree with you.   It's 
>not, and it doesn't.

If QuickTime were ported to the Amiga, you'de finally see what it could
do.  As long as it's on the Mac, you won't.

>
>> Just the fact that an 8 MHz 68000-based machine can do better
>> at all that your $10,000 Quadra says it all.  And they call the
>> Mac a GRAPHICALLY-ORIENTED MACHINE?
>
>No, it doesn't do better than the Quadra.  You're taking two entirely 
>different situations and comparing them.  Show me an Amiga that can do 640 
>x 480 8-bit video animations at 30 fps when updating every pixel on every 
>frame.  This requires a memory bandwidth of over 9 MB/sec.  It's my 
>understanding that the A4000's (the top of the line Amiga) bandwidth into 
>chip memory is only 7 MB/sec, so it couldn't do this due to hardware 
>limitations.

I thought I heard (how does one hear on the net?) that the chip bus
of the A4000 is not only 32-bit, but clocks at twice the rate of
earlier Amigas, or 14.32Mhz.

>
>> And why don't we stop talking about Quadras?  It's always
>> mind-boggling the number of times PC & MAC fanatics want to compare
>> the animation capabilies of their QUADRAS and 486's to an Amiga 600!
>> Notice they NEVER allow a 4000 (the flagship amiga) to enter the fray!
>> 
>> Hey one of you 4000 owners... how fast can you animate 640x480x8?
>
>Yes, what actually is the bandwidth into the A4000's video memory?  If 
>it's not at least 9 MB/sec., the A4000 can't animate 640x480x8 at 30 fps.

4000 owners... take it...