HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ajahn@digi.lonestar.org (Alfredo Jahn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Upgrade Amiga OR buy 486??
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:07:05 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.

I realize I will probably be flamed for the following...

I came into the Amiga arena early in the game. I bought my 2000 in 1986-87?
(when it first came out). Even though there wasn't much software available 
at the time, I knew it was only a matter of time 'til the rest of the world 
believed as I did - "the PC is dead - long live the Amiga; a "real" processor
with a "real" OS!!"  

I still have the stock 7.4 MHZ 68000, a nice big hard drive (210 Meg), the
old Sony monitor/TV, 5 Meg of RAM, a good C compiler, PageStream2.2 and some 
other misc. packages. This was a hell of a system in '87, but today its a dog...
So what do I do?  A new monitor?, flicker-fixer?, '030 or '040 accelerator 
card?, etc.? How much will that cost me?  A lot, thats how much!  

So here is my dilemma... Do I upgrade (with that old 4.x mother board) or take 
the same dollars and get a whole new (50MHZ 486) machine (where I can run UNIX 
(for free) and/or OS/2). The idea of getting a PC makes my stomach turn. And if 
any of my co-workers find out - after so many years of PC bashing, I could risk
being lynched! {:-/

It sure would be nice to buy an industry standard DTP package and be able to 
go to a book store and find 3 or 4 books dedicated to that program. It would
also be nice to get a tape backup, or CD-ROM drive and not have to worry if 
it works on the Amiga.  You get the idea... Of course, I would *always* keep 
my Amiga, with all of that fantastic PD(?) software out there (AmigaUUCP, Sksh,
etc.), and the investment in purchased software/hardware.  I just hate the idea 
of throwing any more money into that old box. I'm also a little worried about 
the future of this machine; I mean, C= doesn't seem to be doing any more 
marketing than it did 5 years ago... If it weren't for companies like NewTek 
and GVP, we would really be in trouble.

The things that the PC lacked 5 years ago are no longer an issue. With OS/2
or that PD Berkeley Unix available (for free), the 640K barrier has been broken
and multi-tasking is a reality.  Of course, MS-DOS still sucks (with their UPPER 
CASE FILE NAMES), but thats not a problem with Unix or OS/2. There are X-Window 
server packages, 24 bit graphics, competitively priced add-ons, multi-media, DTP,
you name it!
        
So, what do you net.amiga.experts recommend?  (I don't even want to ask the 
MS-DOS gang). Please be honest.



-- 
Alfredo Jahn  INTERNET: ajahn@digi.lonestar.org  UUCP: uunet!digi!ajahn
DSC Communications, Corp.
1000 Coit Road, Plano TX 75075   (214) 519-3545
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Nitric oxide is it.
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:26:21 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul27.095751.1576@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>, barnett@ucbeh.san.uc.edu 
writes:
> The chemical agent implicated in causing erections in males is in fact
> Nitric Oxide (NOT nitrous oxide). This was discovered by Solomon Snider
> at Johns Hopkins Medical School. Scientific American recently had an article
> about NO as a neurotransmitter...

Thank you for sharing that.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Commodore and the Osborne Syndrome
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:52:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.135151.22960@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.214807.15050@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>>>
>>>: Oh, this is BS.  How much would it slow down the machine?  5%?  You wouldn't
>>>: even notice that.  A slightly faster CPU would take care of the difference
>>>: and then some.
>>>
>>>Memory protection can and generally DOES slow it down a HELL of a lot
>>>more than 5%.  Try 58%.  That was using my friend's MP-added CD-RTOS
>>>system.  That gives it MP and resource tracking.  And it was next
>>>to unusable.  Sure, it had it, but it was next to unusable.  58,
>>>Jerry.  That's enough to go from productive to unproductive in 13.8
>>>seconds.
>>>
>>
>>This is INSANE.  What CPU was this implemented on?  Did it have an on-board
>>MMU like the 386 or the 68030?  There's NO WAY those CPUs would experience
>>that much of a slowdown.  I have a 386, and DOS applications under OS/2
>>(full MP) don't run noticeably slower than they do under native DOS.
>>Benchmarks indicate a slowdown of a few percent, no more.
>
>Please, before we go off blaming the CPU, there are other factors
>that could account for performance degredation in any VM system.
						       ~~	
Sorry, I just realized that the discussion was on MP, not VM.  My comments
do not apply to MP (I thought that VM was much more closely related to
performance than MP...)
>For example, if a system has plenty of physical memory, then
>paging will occur rarely, usually at first reference.  If on the
>hand, memory is tight, then paging can and will consume a greater
>percentage of resources.  Then it becomes a function of other
>factors such as how fast your disk is, whether it is DMA, bus
>throughput, etc.  For example, paging to floppy would never win
>any benchmarks.  Note that I am speaking in generalities here as
>this would be true on any VM system.
>
>>| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
>
>
>
>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
>HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
>7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
>McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: dano@srl01.usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Colors VS. Greys
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:17:58 GMT

kevint@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Kevin Taddeucci) writes:


>     I usually don't get into this advocacy stuff, but I can no longer
>     resist, so here goes:
>     
>     C= uses bright colors for 1.3:                           PEOPLE BITCH!
>     C= uses greys for 2.0:                                   PEOPLE BITCH!
>     C= allows users to set any combination from 4096 colors: PEOPLE BITCH!
>     
>     Is there a pattern here?
>     
>     Personally I like the grey scheme, it allows a nice 3D look and is 
>     easy on the eyes. If I want nice colors for presentations, I use a 
>     custom screen or use the other 12 colors available on workbench 
>     screens. 
>     
>     Bottom line:   WHAT'S TO BITCH ABOUT!

Nothing, as far as I can see.
Configuability is one of the GREAT things about OS/2 2.0, for example.

>     
>     How's that for my 1st (2nd?) advocacy post? (At least it's advocating.)            ----------------------------- ------------------------------------
>      | Kevin J. Taddeucci          | e-mail: kevint@hpsad.sad.hp.com    |
>      | Hewlett Packard Firmware QA | HPDesk: Kevin TADDEUCCI /HP5300/A0 |
>      | Telnet: 794-4192            | HP Mailstop: 2LR-N                 | 
>       ----------------------------- ------------------------------------

--
Dan Stephenson|das9674@usl.edu masres10@ucs.usl.edu dano@srl01.cacs.usl.edu
Come all of you you/Who are not satisfied/As rulers in a lone wall/
papered room/Full of mute bird and flowers that /Falsely bloom/And
closets choked with dreams that long ago died,... --Judy Collins
From: Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP (Paula Lieberman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga Future?!?y
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:36:03 GMT
Organization: Amiga Colony BBS

re articles by Marc Barrett: The amount of money and percentage of income
that a company spends on R&D doesn't necessarily say if the company is
getting any value out of it -- just look at all the money spend by Xerox on
R&D that everyone EXCEPT Xerox exploited....   Don't know about Marc
Barrett, but I've had a ringside seat view of wasted R&D effort -- LOTS of
wasted R&D efforts... and I've some some modest R&D expenditures that got
results that big efforts flopped at..... depends on -who's- doing the work,
how competent at it they are, and whether management a) listens to them,
and b) knows how to get products out based on the R&D.  There's a lot of
stuff that never quite makes it out to the retail shelves.....


-- Via DLG Pro v0.991
From: TomK@cup.portal.com (Tom R Krotchko)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: commodore
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 22:59:00 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>People bitched and Commodore release...
[list of bitches and results of bitches]

So it sounds like the only way to get a new product out of
Commodore is to castigate them publicly?
From: dridi@choco.UUCP (Gilles Dridi ERF004)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  Commodore and the Osborne Syndrome; MP slow down?
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:57:47 GMT
Organization: None

In article <1992Jul28.223602.934@msus1.msus.edu> lkoop@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (LaMonte Koop) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.014224.12961@seas.gwu.edu>, gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>cuadrasola@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>
> [ stuff deleted ]
>>release with its true 32-bit architecture, but Commodore crippled it with
>>6-bit graphics, lack of RTG, lack of memory protection, lack of...
>
>    I will admit some valid points exist with the above statement, but I do
>wish to voice an argument against memory protection.  I agree it would be
>nice to have in terms of development, but there are a few things people
>do not realize about it.  For starters, it does slow the system a good
>deal.	AmigaOS was designed to be a fast, compact, and as close to real-time

    Swapping do it not MP.
    Real-time is real time not super fast OS. Do you follow me...

>OS as possible.  Anyone used to its good response time would be very
>disappointed with its slowed reactions in a memory protected environment.
>    Seconds of all, applications presently would break, period, under
>memory protection.  It simply is not an option under the current AmigaOS
>layout.  Memory protection is nice to have...I certainly enjoy it under
>large systems I have developed on.  As of yet, however, I have not seen an
>implementation on a smaller system which did not noticably affect system
>performance, in some cases annoyingly.  Some may not notice due to expectations

    Sure you have to wait a few second more if you are browsing windows and
    their tied applications...
    But typing text, refreshing screen, do not involve slow down.

>they have, and some systems do contain extremely fast hardware to counter this.
>However, systems which contain this are often a great deal more expensive than
>is desired.

    Really, I think the Amiga has very good hardware and sotware design
    with full/plein features.
    Probably, MP is impossible in terms of time development due to the
    choice of the messaging system in the Amiga that involves rewriting
    parts of Exec.

>		    ----------------------------------------
>	      LaMonte Koop -- SCSU Electrical/Computer Engineering
>  Internet: lkoop@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu -OR- f00012@kanga.stcloud.msus.edu
>		"You mean you want MORE lights on this thing???"
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Gilles Dridi
{cbmvax!cbmehq}!cbmfra!choco!dridi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: dtiberio@csws17.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: OH MY GOD...I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT I JUST SAW
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.234456.11411@seas.gwu.edu> gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>dtiberio@libws2.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>>> 	IBM must have released the 586, and lots of people must be out
>>> 	there eating floppy disks.
>>
>>You'll be waiting forever for IBM to release the 586 because Intel
>>makes the 80x86 line of CPU's.
>
>While you are at it, why not inform him that not too many people eat
>floppy disks?  Even the sarcastic posts get flamed now...
>
>By the way, does not AMD (or some such) also make 80x86 processors?
>
>-- Gerald

	And so does Cyrix. But of course only Intel will develop the 586,
unless they do a joint venture as I have heard some people mention, but Intel
would never develop any processors with AMD or Cyrix.



-- 
      //   David Tiberio  SUNY Stony Brook 516-473-5156 AMIGA  DDD-MEN   
     //  bounce-resistant:    dtiberio%libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu@sunysb.edu
   \X/	    Perot for President 1-516-399-2259 Long Island, New York

 	PPPP  EEEEE RRRR   OOO  TTTTT    IIIII N   N      999   6666
	P   P E     R   R O   O   T        I   NN  N     9   9 6
	PPPP  EEEE  RRRR  O   O   T        I   N N N      9999 6666
 	P     E     R R   O   O   T        I   N  NN         9 6   6
 	P     EEEEE R  R   OOO    T      IIIII N   N     9999   666
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: PeeCees?!? AAAAAAAAAAAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:35:36 GMT

chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) writes:
>Or if you say compares to 286, why not go into a 286 mb for $50.00

Wow!  286 megs for only $50!  Kidding...

-- Gerald
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: I DID giev up on the Amiga!
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:00:16 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <doctor.017n@k9.UUCP> doctor@k9.UUCP (Paul Broe) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.025609.11779@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett) writes:
> >    Not quite.  AmigaOS runs very well on an A2000 with a 14Mhz 68020
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > accelerator, 4M of RAM, and 40M SCSI hard drive.  No modern versions of UNIX
                 ^^^^^^^^^      ^^^
> > will run at all on such a system, because it lacks an MMU, doesn't have enough
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

Mark is wrong about the MMU (wish I had the 851 for the HW breakpoints :)  He is
not wrong about a 4M RAM, 40M HD machine being a ridiculously small machine to
run Unix with a GUI.  Can't swap.  Not enough RAM to load "hello, world" and
not enough HD to install Unix on.

> If you are referring to the A2620, you are wrong. Ask someone who owns one. :-)
>                                                |
>                                                |
>                                                |
>                                               \ /
> ----                                           .
> Paul Broe
> Internet: broe@plains.nodak.edu
> UUCP: uunet!plains!prototype!k9!doctor (My Amiga 2500/20)    AmigaUUCP 1.16D
> BIX: pbroe Compu$erve: too expensive.                        AmigaOS 2.04

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: 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: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: I am giving up on the Amiga
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:47:29 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>3% is enough for Dell to make 4 oustanding computer systems.
>Better than the Amiga 3000, and better than the quadra.

  What makes you say they're better?

>why anyone would buy a Macintosh anymore.  THe PC's on display there were
>quite impressive and there is just so much more software and hardware options
>for the PCs.  I asked a salesman, and he said that the Mac is still great for
>people who are afraid of computers and benefit from the Mac's ease of setup.
>That's the ONLY explaination that makes any sense to me at all...

  You should try asking comp.sys.mac.misc, since everyone has their own
reason as to why they bought a Mac.  I can only relate my reasons.
  My reasons are that I love technology, and I think Apple is the most
likely company out there to make a success of introducing innovative
technology.  Microsoft just isn't innovative (read Accidental Empires), 
and it is Microsoft who is driving the PC world.
  
  Of course, I also think the Mac saves me money (where time equals
money).  As must do a lot of other people.  Whenever I go to seminars
at Xerox PARC, I walk in and see large numbers of people sitting
there with Mac Powerbooks on their knee.  I certainly wouldn't
term the people who attend these meetings computer-phobic.  

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: DEC/Commodore Agreement
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:48:12 GMT
X-Posted-From: connection.prospect.com
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>Commodore had an excuse for inventing their own API in 1986: you can't run
>UNIX on a bare 68000.
>

What does that have to do with the API?  Minix runs on a bare 68000 and has
the UNIX API.  Why doesn't AmigaDOS?  What excuse does Commodore have?
IMHO, this statement of yours has always been a dumb one.

>
>Microsoft has no such excuse for Windows. There is no
>technical reason the native NT API isn't a superset of UNIXs. The only possible
>reason is fear of open standards, cynical marketing decisions, and Bill Gates
>bruised ego.
>

I guess you don't know, Peter, that NT will include a POSIX API server?
Besides, who made UNIX the god of operating systems?

>
>OS/2, NT, and other "desktop" systems are purely evil. Supporting them is
>selling out your own professional integrity and your customer's and friends
>long term good in favor of glitz and short-term "solutions".
>

Peter, you've got to be the most cynical person I've ever encountered.  You
slam everything that you don't like, and you only like two things: circa
1972 UNIX and AmigaDOS.  Why do you have to hack everything else to bits?
Your own argument about UNIX API's (above) is inconsistent.  Face it: you
*like* AmigaDOS, and you *like* early UNIX, and you closed your mind to
new technologies long ago.  Stop trying to make up some sort of objective
reasoning for your personal likes and dislikes.

Obviously, squeezing maximum use out of each transistor in a $4 DRAM chip is
the most important thing to you, for some reason.  Guess what?  Other people
have other needs, like memory protection, virtual memory, DIG, multiple API
support, DOS application support, a sophisticated GUI, etc.

What's with the "my way is the One True Way" attitude?

>
>Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| 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                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: kdarling@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: 68000 ALU (was Re: I am giving up on the Amiga)
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:28:28 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: North Carolina State University

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>I've asked this question before, and I;ll ask it again:  If the 68000
>as a 16 bit ALU, then why is it that I notice no difference in instruction
>timing between:
>	add.w		#1,d5
>		and
>	add.l		#1,d5

Hi.  That's not a good test of the ALU size, as an add.l must inherently
take longer to execute on a 68000 because it has to fetch another word
from memory.  Have you disassembled what your compiler is putting out?
Perhaps it's converting those to "addi.w" and "addq.l", respectively.
Those take the same amount of cycles.

kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Subject: Re: Distribution of Products.....
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:51:06 GMT

billc@popsicle.UUCP (William J. Coldwell) writes:
: Yeh, well contrary to popular rumors, I did NOT fly out to Denver and burn
: the place down... and I did NOT send Steve Spring that bag of marshmallows.

Yeah, sure.  ;)  Actually, I hadn't heard those rumors.  Interesting,
though.  I do remember a few heated words about them from your end,
pun intended...  :)

Greg

--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :) :)
(:"The person who said size doesn't matter was probably a very small man":)
(:	gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu			Gregory R. Block         :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Games on consoles
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:13:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.180759.20904@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>In article <mykes.0arh@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>[ ]
>>>
>>> 	I think you underestimate PC games.  There are quite a few out there
>>>    that are very nice.  Over the last few months I bought quite a few great
>>>    PC games: Ultima Underworld, Star Trek the 25th Anniversary, Links 386 Pro,
>>>    Red Baron, to name some.  The future of PC games looks even nicer, with
>>>    great games on the horizon, like Strike Commander.
>>>
>>
>>OK, looks like you mentioned 4 or 5 "must have" games for the PC.  Can anyone
>>name one for the Amiga?
>
>First of all I've never understood the obsession with any of those games
>listed above [ have no idea about Strike Commander], nor Wind Commander, etc...
>There are lot's of SNES games far better than these. Most golf games on 
>computers are a waste. Links is truly no big deal. Mac Golf on the MacII was
>ok (in colour) but it wasn't worth the money I spent on it.

Are you feeling OK, Phil?

I supposed you've never seen Ultima Underworld before, right?  What does
the SNES have that is so much better? Their no-mouse Dungeon MAster?

And if you've played a flight sim with an analog joystick, you'll NEVER
want to go back to digital ones for flight sims again.

>As far as I'm concerned Lemmings on CDTV is better than all of the above.
>So is Sonic on the Genesis, Super Mario V on the SNES, Adams Family,
>CV IV on the SNES, etc...

Right.  Game consoels are more oriented at side-scrolling, 'kiddie' games.
I find the coimplex computer games muchmore entertaining.
Good grief, you get REALY REALLY paranoid in Ultima Underworld if you don't have a light source and it's so dark!!!
>
>Philip McDunnough
>philip@utstat.toronto.edu


-- 
*Dan Stephenson das9674@rouge.usl.edu                                          *
*                                                                              *
* "Is it that Blake has a genius for leadership, or merely that *you* have a   *
*  genius for being led?" -Avon, from Blakes 7                                 *