HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: Juicy tidbits
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:13:58 GMT

jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>OK, let's go ahead and add 16- and 24-bit graphics to the list of things
>Amiga users, in their wisdom beyond years, find unnecessary.

Oh, so one guy speaks for all Amiga users.  Interesting.  I have not even
met him.  Besides that, I disagreed with much of what he said.  (I, for
one, want 24-bit+ graphics and high resolution.)  Let's add gross exaggeration
to the list of things Mr. Shekhel dishes out.

-- Gerald
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jyoung@isis.cs.du.edu (Jeff Young)
Subject: NEW Amigas soon 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 04:05:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.011619.7706@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett) writes:
>
>   By winter, Commodore should have finally announced their new systems
>(if the rumors are correct).  I don't expect to be too wild about them, but
>they should be enough to marginally beat the new Atari systems.
>


If Commodore told you about new machines then you should tell US! People
spend too much on Amigas now so they should wait until powerful Amgias
arrive.  I heard Commodore put HAM-E inside?  What about sound and
CPU?

>---
>| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
>--------------------------------------------------
>       <Insert your favorite one-liner here>


Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: 040 and 486_ (bunch O' Kaka anyway)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:31:49 GMT

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


>The way to do the benchmarks is to code them in hand crafted assembly.  That
>way, the quality of the 'C' compiler does NOT come into play.  The same coder
>should do both programs.

>The above test will show how the shuffling of registers makes a difference.

If they are in assembly language, we have to use two programmers. One who
specializes in the 68k line, and one who specializes in the 486 line. If
we used one programmer, which one would he develop better code for, the
one he is better at or the one he is worse at? 
Or, use the same compiler, exactly the same. All options should be the same.
I just checked comp.benchmarks, and someone listed a bunch of machines
for a test. And machines with the same things, same type of computer, same
CPU/FPU, same operating speed, same compiler, only different compiler options.
And the results varied tremendously. (or maybe the options were supposed to
make a difference, like compiling more or less code or something, I do not
know. I did not look at the thing closely).
Obviously, we are not going to be able to create something fair easily, and
get some programmers to write a series of tests (just CPU tests, not I/O,
as I said before) and do it equally, like same proficiency for both machines,
have all tests listed and not "screened," etc. So we should just find
something in a Unix magazine or something like that. 

Nish Patel   nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:   SCSI stuff
Distribution: world
Date: 11 Apr 92 11:28:20 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <bruce.07af@zuhause.MN.ORG> bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) writes:
>In article <root.019x@rkamiga.UUCP> root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Vaporware floppy drives
>SCSI floppy drives are not vaporware.  Teac, and others make 1.44/2.88 Mbyte
>SCSI floppies, and Amiga owners (not me, though) have had them for at least
>six months to a year.  The 20 Mbyte flopticals apparently are shipping too,
>at least in the last month or two.

What is the wholesale price for a SCSI floppy drive? Just curious.

In the pc clone world these may not sell too well, as the most popular
SCSI adaptor, the Adaptec 1542B, has a floppy controller built in.

Also, a pc clone would require a new BIOS to be bootable from a SCSI
floppy.

A floptical would be nice on my Amiga.

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

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
From: sorvan@orion.bison.mb.ca (Colin Stobbe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video Machine - Toaster Sales Killer?
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:58:06 GMT
Organization: The Orion Unix System [A/UX 2.0.1], Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


>   "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."  

Um, does this mean that you could input PAL video, and output NTSC?  Is it
just me, or doesn't this require REALLY EXPENSIVE hardware.  Just buying
a VCR which can play more than one video standard costs a bundle.  Having
hardware which can slice and dice the video signal, changing the number
of scanlines in a picture while keeping decent quality is expensive, isn't
it?  Or is it just that giant advances have been made since last I looked
at this sort of thing, or maybe I'm just not understanding what they mean.

>least 4 MB main memory. It also runs on IBM/AT and compatibles with 16-bit
>slot or PS/2 systems with MCA/640KB memory under DOS 3.3+ or Windows 3.0+.

>Availability is slated for this December at $4000, with the price predicted
>to drop dramatically as sales take off.

Pretty amazing if it's all true.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Stobbe              | Cute .sig in construction
sorvan@orion.bison.mb.ca  | 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:27:13 GMT

In <sctconno.702515641@kraken> sctconno@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Dave Connors) writes:

>You really do talk through your arse. What the hell do you mean 'truely' 
>graphical interface? You mean an interface which "locks" you into graphics
>only? Workbench surpasses windows3.0 and system 7.0 for usability. I haven't
>seen OS2/2.0 yet.

Is there any research to prove this?  I just saw some on Windows, OS/2 and the
MAC but no AmigaDOS/Workbench.  Are you thinking of 1.3 or 2?

>A 68040 does 3.5 MIPS as opposed to the 1.7 of an intel 80486. I think
>you'll find the 68040 based platform beating the 80486 ased one in serious
>applications.

Depends on the language and compiler, doesn't have alot to do with MIPS in an
actual application.  Especially if you're talking about entirely different OS's
which we are.

-- 
   ________________________________________________________________________
  /                                  /                                    /
 /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
/__________________________________/____________________________________/
From: s915426@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Leanne Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Amigas Announced!!!!
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:31:10 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.

har@ux.acs.umn.edu (--SeebS--) writes:

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

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

Me too, although only the stuff you get in the U.K. (The locally made stuff
stinks (I mean its black when the poor it!)

>It was interesting.

<Must try it...

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

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

>-s
>-- 
>Peter Seebach, using my fiancee's acount. (Please use "SEEBS" in the subject
>line, so we know who it's for.)  Polygamy: "There can be more than one."
>I use an amiga because it works better than all the other machines I tried.
>har@ux.acs.umn.edu (Love Incarnate)

This seems a popular way to do things.  I too am using my fiances account
(With her present of course....) and any replies can be directed back at me
through her at: s915426@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
or directly at me at: dweaver@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au
which incidently ends up forwarded here anyway - so it doesn't really matter

Long live the A3000 (And whatever comes next :) )!
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: 16 Apr 92 14:46:40 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1992Apr14.052558.5959@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> espen@coos.dartmouth.edu (Espen H. Koht) writes:
>root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>   Oh?  Have you ever used A/UX?  For your information MacOS runs on top of
>A/UX - not the other way around.  That is also why A/UX 2.0 is not compatible
>with system 7.0.

A/UX is launched from MacOS.  In order to run A/UX on a Mac, you must also
have MacOS on the machine.  Once A/UX is launched, it takes over the machine.

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

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:08:07 GMT

cython@ais.org (Tim Devlin) writes:
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>Yes, that is a good question.  It is one I cannot answer without using some
>>less than complementary remarks about Commodore's management.  I would love
>>to able to afford an A3000 with 28MHz 040, 24-bit graphics, and a 16-bit
>>audio board.  I cannot, so I may well get a 50MHz 486.  Intel PC prices are
>>dropping too fast to resist.  Too bad, though; I want an Amiga.
>>
>you guys are kidding right?  You really don't know why an A3000 cost more
>then 3rd party 486 cloans??  sigh.....

Of course we were being less than serious; at least, I was.  Perhaps I am
still bitter about Commodore releasing that @#$* Amiga clone--the A600.  Is
it necessary to include smileys with every post?

-- Gerald
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: 040 and 486_ (bunch O' Kaka anyway)
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:53:26 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>The way to do the benchmarks is to code them in hand crafted assembly.  That
>way, the quality of the 'C' compiler does NOT come into play.  The same coder
>should do both programs.
>

You've got to be joking.  The 486 code should be written by an expert in
486 assembly language, and vice versa.  Otherwise, the coder's preferences
will easily show in the results.

What's wrong with using GNU C, for more of a "real world" comparison?

>
>The above test will show how the shuffling of registers makes a difference.
>

Since you haven't conducted the experient, isn't your conviction premature?

>
>Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
|                            jerry@polygen.com                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: *** ULTIMATE BASHING for PeeCee Users
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:37:43 GMT

gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>
>[OS/2 vs. A-DOS efficiency]
>
>I think it's a fair comparison...  Somewhat.  Though it's not.  I
>imagine VM and MP could be done in a relatively small amount of code,
>if there weren't certain things involved--mainly message passing.  And
>I wouldn't give up the way the Amiga message-passes for MP.
>

OS/2 has message-passing *and* MP (message passing is part of the
Presentation Manager's windowing API).  What is the difference between
the Amiga's and OS/2's message-passing mechanisms?  Just curious...

>
>: Does OS-9 have a GUI with a device-independent graphics engine consisting of
>: several hundred calls?  How about a windowing library?
>
>Points taken, but if you take the 160K or so of code that OS/9 uses
>for MP, and were to throw it into an Amiga system (rewriting the code,
>of course), let's say it's 200 then.  200k more than what is currently
>taken is still lots less than OS/2, do you see?  And VM is a LOT
>easier to implement than MP.
>
>And we're still not up to OS/2.
>

Well, like I said, OS/2 contains more functionality in every OS component
than does AmigaDOS (kernel, graphics, GUI, etc).  Plus, it has kernel support
for two API's (16- and 32-bit), DOS emulation, and Windows support.  I fully
realize that this stuff is "baggage", but in the PC world, where compatibility
is everything, it's necessary baggage, and it does add to the memory
requirements.

>
>Greg
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
|                            jerry@polygen.com                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: 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 20:48:18 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Rob Healey writes
> 	A/UX is SVR2.x based, POSIX started from a SVR3.0 base SVID so that's
> 	a VERY interesting trick there guy.

A/UX Version *2* is SVR2.x based.. A/UX Version *3* is SVR4-based.
 
> 	An Amiga fanatic wouldn't say that because we've had animation for
> 	years, see the animation contests from the mid 80's to see what I
> 	mean. I also don't see very many 32 bit graphics anywhere, what I
> 	do see is 256 color graphics with 24 bit palettes. If you don't
> 	know the difference go take Computer Graphics 101.

Then you don't get out much, do you? We use several machines (PCs and Macs),  
many of which RELY on 24-bit video (the 8-bit alpha is seldomly used, and  
that's a shame.. :( for multimedia and graphics.
--
*******************************************************************************
* "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: pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro)
Subject: Re: *** ULTIMATE BASHING for PeeCee Users
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.003035.3877@cheshire.oxy.edu> leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt) writes:
>
>What the bleep is OS/9?  Where can I get it?  What does it run on?
>

OS-9 is a small-kernel real-time operating system that primarily runs
on 68K architectures, and also the 6809 (i.e. CoCo).  It is often used
in industrial control equipment, embedded systems, etc. because it is
small, ROMable, and modular.  There's also a portable version called,
I think, OS-9000 which runs on the Intel 80x86.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about it.  It's nice in many ways,
but the user environment (especially the shell) is very primitive.
Not nearly as nice as UNIX in that respect.  And there isn't as much
support from the user community as personal computer users are
accustomed to (though you can find some GNU stuff).  This is one
reason why a lot of people use cross-development environments for it.
I think it's also quite expensive - comparable to PC UNIX prices.

These observations are based on my experiences with a couple
VMEbus-based industrial OS-9 systems running v2.2 and v2.3.  The OS-9
PC's (i.e. MM/1) might be different.  I don't know.

Paul


-- 
Paul Secinaro            | Synthetic Vision and Pattern Analysis Lab
pss1@kepler.unh.edu      | Dept. of Computer and Electrical Engineering
p_secinaro@unhh.unh.edu  | University of New Hampshire
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 040 and 486 and nap42487 knows nothing about CPUs.
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga GRn V1.29 4/10/92 (Beta) by Mike Schwartz
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:28:00 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Apr16.222022.6415@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.192947.14454@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>>
>>>Yes, I really bash on Intel, I have very bad experiences with their
>>>design, and this I reported. And I got the impression that this opinion
>>>is shared by all people I know that come from the same experience,
>                          ^ ^^^^
>>>having programmed both brands. Why on earth is that arrogant?
>>>
>>
>>Assuming that your opinion is shared by everyone else *is* arrogance.
>>
>Jerry, you must be having a bad day.  Although many of your posts are
>inflammatory, they usually indicate you actually read the post to
>which you are responding.  Apparently, you missed the two words I have
>pointed out (sorry about that pun); I see no claim of "everyone else".
>
>No flame intended, honest.  I am just disappointed; I expect better
>posts from you.
>

NOTE:  Dr. Kittel works for a big-time European IBM PC clown manufacturer.
When he says ALL people he knows, he means IBM PC guys as well as 68K
guys.

--
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
From: har@ux.acs.umn.edu (--SeebS--)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 040 and 486_ (bunch O' Kaka anyway)
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:54:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux.1992Apr16.205415.27333
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1992Apr15.150138.21016@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Let's stick to the facts, and leave speculation aside.  GNU C is obviously
>not *optimized* for either architecture, and yet it seems to produce excellent
>code on both.  I just can't think of a test that would be any more fair.

I know! Let's throw an 80486 and a 68040 in the ocean. Whichever one floats
is a witch.

>>25MHz 486 = 15 MIPS
>>25MHz 040 = 20 MIPS

>MIPS are meaningless because the 486 and 040 have different instruction sets.

Yuppers. The 68040 instruction set is cleaner, so 1 68040 mip ~= 1.2 80486
mips. (Note that mip is not a proper unplural, but it's the most idiomatic
word...) Thus, we really have:

25 Mhz 486 = 15 MIPS
25 Mhz 040 = 24 MIPS

Thanks, jer. I almost missed that one. :)

>| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
>|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |

One presumes drummers have lots of children.

-s
-- 
Peter Seebach, using my fiancee's acount. (Please use "SEEBS" in the subject
line, so we know who it's for.)  Polygamy: "There can be more than one."
I use an amiga because it works better than all the other machines I tried.
har@ux.acs.umn.edu (Love Incarnate)
From: 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 06:12:45 GMT
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN

In article <1992Mar31.140019.10062@ms.uky.edu>, justin@mik.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan) writes:
|> You will probably recant that (just an opinion) when version 3.0 of A/UX
!> ships. And the A4000 is vaporhardware.. 
|> 
	Where DO you get this stuff? A/UX 3.0 is/will be pathetic relative
	to the SVR4 offerings already out for months. It will certainly
	be no match for Solaris.

|>> I might as well sell my Amiga and my Sun right now and go buy a Mac.
|> No no.. Sell the Amiga to some game player and keep the Sun (but only if
!> it's a SPARCstation 1+ or better).
|> 
	I don't think a game player would like my Amiga 3000 as the
	Euro demos don't work well on '020's and above. SVR4 UNIX
	and AmigaDOS 2.04 like it alot though, and so do I.

		-Rob
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Zorro III Stuff (Was: Guesses, et al.)
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:20:06 GMT
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <1992Apr10.092203.4796@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>:daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:

>Well, you're right, I should have tried harder.  ;)  I wanted to know,
>basically, how Buster created the strobes, and you told me.  Does the
>bus, then, slow down to "16MHz" on a 16MHz A3000?

Well, basically, CPU to Zorro III transactions are governed by 32MHz timing
grain on the 16MHz system and 50MHz timing grain on the 25MHz system.  Which
reflects the fact that while the Zorro III protocol is asynchronous, neither
the 68030 bus nor the Fat Buster chip can (or should) be fully asynchronous.

>: Well, it had to support Zorro II as a subset.  Other than that restriction,
>: I made it up from scratch.

>So, given your view that it's either Multiprocessor with I/O on the
>side or I/O with Multiprocessor on the side, do you see ZorroIII
>fitting into the latter? (that's my guess...)

Pretty much so.  I could extend Zorro III to be more efficient at 
multiprocessing, but I think you could easily go that one better.  For example,
the free 68040 bus you get with any 68040 solves one of the two big homogenous 
multiprocessing problems, that of cache coherency.

>: Bus acquisition isn't really the 2410's problem, though; its problem is 
>: run-time determinism.  Since the 34010 is directly involved in the display 
>: generation, it can't stand to be wait stated for very long.

>So what mechanism could be included to control that?  Is it possible
>to give it "priority"?  Or doesn't the current design make that feasible?

Basically, when two devices require pure or near pure determinism from a 
memory system, there's nothing you can do.  Obviously, a CPU would like to get
stuff to and from memory as fast as possible, but it doesn't generally fail
if things just slow down, it just slows down.  The CPU doesn't require any
purely deterministic access.  However, video devices like the 34010 and Agnus
do -- if they can't get at memory just when they need it, the display fails,
and you see this as a picture that breaks up.



-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      BIX: hazy
      "What would they do if I just sailed away?" -Jimmy Buffett