From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga 4000/Atari Falcon
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:15:33 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Aug21.042408.24416@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au> davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) writes:
> In article <mykes.0cxk@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug20.035014.22539@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au> davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) writes:
> >> In article <mykes.0cwe@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> >> >
> >> >Great!  Put me in your killfile.  Whatever yanks your chain.
> >>
> >> Nay, not mine.  I agree with a lot of what you say, but not the tone you've
> >> been using.  It's wearing a bit thin.
> >>
> >
> >The tone I am using?  It is more like yours, where instead of just ignorantly
> >bashing other computers that used to be "lessor" technology, I am starting
> >to reject the ignorance.
>
> So, I try to get some constructive suggestions from you, and you flame me.

No, I don't flame you at all.  Reread the sentence.  I say my tone is like
yours and define it.  Note: you "agree with a lot of what I say."

> Great.  If you can find one instance of me ignorantly bashing other computers,
> I'd like to see it.  If you really think I'm ignorant, maybe you should tell my
> employers, who pay me to manage networks of PCs and workstations, and develop
> PC applications.  In fact, I find it hard to believe you wrote that - we've had
> quite sensible discussions in the past concerning Amigas and PCs.  Why suddenly
> accuse me of ignorance now?
>

*** FLAME ON ***
I am not flaming you.  But you flamed me "my tone is wearing a bit thin."
*** FLAME OFF ***

> >And flame CBM.  If you don't like me flaming CBM, tough.
>
> What I don't like is constant bitching with no alternatives being suggested.
> I tried to get you to say what should be happening, and it looks like I've
> succeeded.  Now, we can argue over the merits of what you suggest, rather than
> "CBM sux!" - "Does not!" - "Does too!!" type stuff.
>
> >What DO I want to see happen now?  You WON'T like it...
>
> Luckily, I don't have to...   :-)
>

YOU asked for it :)

> >If I were CBM, I'd be
> >looking at a 486 box with custom chipsets and AmigaOS and DOS compatibility.
>
> A 486 box with Amiga chips could have AmigaOS ported to it, sure, but that
> won't let it run Amiga software.  Commodore should develop a 68000 emulator,
> you say?  What an awful solution - trying to run a PC emulator on a 680x0 is
> bad enough, but a 486 would have real trouble emulating a 68k - not enough
> registers, you see.  It could be done, but oh, so slow!
>

No, CBM shouldn't worry about compatibility with existing Apps.  They shouldn't
have with OS 2.04, either.  If they spent half the effort they spent on compatibility
towards VM, MP, and DIG, we'd have plenty of apps by now that worked.  And we'd
have those features.  While they're breaking all the Apps, the CPU switch would
be just dandy, too...  Don't have 68K on the brain so much :)

Think about what it would mean.  The OS would use the 386/486 in true 32 bit mode
all the time - none of the DOS 640K barrier, none of the 16-bit emulation crap.
Just a cheaper and faster CPU.  Faster at the low end.  Faster at the high end.

If they want to do DOS compatibility, then you don't have to do what you are
complaining about - emulate the x86 in slow motion.

Also, I don't suggest CBM drop the 68K altogether.  Not at all.  They can make
BOTH systems.

> >Yes, 486.  As much as I love the 68K line, it is a niche market, at best.
>
> So Apple should start making 486 machines too, eh?  They're moving to risc in
> the future, sure, but NOT the x86 chips.
>

Intel is moving the x86 line into the Risc universe, too.  P-5.  And there
WILL be apps.  If CBM did the ultimate best thing - to build an R4000 machine
running AmigaOS, there would be fewer apps than there are now (hardly any).

> Besides, what's wrong with the Amiga occupying a niche?  I've said it before -
> anyone who ever expected the Amiga to take over the market from the IBM clones
> isn't in the real world.  But it can (and has) establish a market share, or
> niche, if you like, and keep it.  Even flourish, on it's own terms.
>

Occupying a niche gives us little in the way of productivity software.  It
closes the door to BIG companies that would otherwise support the machine
with quality software.

Fourish?  That's what the Amiga is doing?  HAHAHA.  Declining market share
is all the Amiga has ever done.

> >But a 486 makes it possible for Borland to port C++ to AmigaOS and for Lotus
> >to port 1-2-3.  Give it those Kludged up 16-bit ISA slots so we can use those
> >cheapo hardware addons.
>
> What's the point of all this, though?  You yourself have said that OS/2 is just
> like AmigaOS, only better, and OS/2 apps are AmigaOS apps.  So, why bother
> porting AmigaOS to the 486, then putting up with poor performance in Amiga
> software because of the emulator.  If there's no 68k emulation, current Amiga
> software will need to be ported to this 486 AmigaOS environment.  They might
> as well just port to OS/2 and be done with it.
>

Ah, but you see, CBM has invested their whole future in their OS.  Their proprietary
hardware is next to useless in the real world.  And forget emulation.  That's your
idea, not mine.  You asked for MY suggestions.

> >The A600 _could_ be the same price and have a 386 in it.  Think about it...
>
> I doubt that a 386 system, with new custom chips, and a new OS, could sell
> for $400.  Who'd buy it?  Hardly any games would be available, for one thing.
> You might as well just forget the Amiga bits, and have, say, a 386 in an A600
> style case, with VGA on the motherboard, with video (TV) output support, and
> have it run DOS.  You could do that for that price, but it would be a PC, not
> an Amiga.
>

A $400 price tag isn't the issue.  People in mass quantities are buying machines
at twice the price with MORE power.

> >> Do you think that C= should just give up all Amiga development and only sell
> >> clones from now on?  Should all of us who own Amigas throw them out and buy
> >> 486s with OS/2?
> >
> >No, I think C= should marry their technology to what 20 or 30 times as many
> >people are using.
>
> Personally, I get a kick out of using something different.  I don't feel any
> need to fit in with the crowd, as long as we have reasonable software support.
> And, yes, that's a BIG if - I'll give you that.
>

An Amiga with 386/486 IS different.  And the reasonable software support is
a freebie for the big fish - 1-2-3, Novell, etc.

> >Should anyone who has an A3000 throw it away?  No.  But if
> >you are going to jump ship, it is the best time NOW to do it.
>
> Funny you should say that just as we're finally getting new machines with new
> graphics and all that.  If new machines weren't appearing, I'd agree with you.
>

That's why NOW is the best time - new machines.  The value of your A3000 is
about to DROP like a rock.

> >Should people buy NEW Amiga machines?  NO WAY.
>
> Sorry, but I'm going to.  I'm looking forward to it, too!
>

Go for it.  Just don't complain that little software, other than the OS, takes
advantage of your machine.  Don't complain if games don't work, since everyone
will be either developing for the A600 or not at all.

> >> I can tell you what I'm going to be doing - I'm going to buy one of the new
> >> systems when they appear (assuming the price is reasonable).  I plan on using
> >> Amigas for years to come, and look forward to the introduction of new
> >> technologies, such as RTG, in the not-too-distant future.
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm an optimist, but that's the plan.
> >
> >Sorry, but you sound like you want to chain yourself into a dead end.  FWIW,
> >OS/2 is as much of a dead end, at least for now.
>
> I disagree on both counts.  Let's imagine that the new machines don't live up
> to my expectations on features and/or price.  I'd then buy a 486, and install
> OS/2 on it.  It is in a similar situation to the Amiga - clearly better in
> terms of design, but not selling as well as the kludgy alternatives, which have
> more support.  I'm sure OS/2 has enough applications, or at least PD
> alternatives, to keep me going, just as the Amiga does now.
>

OS/2 is likely to sell far more than the Amiga ever (EVER) will.

> Essentially, I have never seen PCs running DOS/Windows as the future.  I never
> intended to stay with the Amiga forever, and back in 1986, when I bought my
> A1000, I would have been amazed to hear that I hadn't moved to another platform
> by '92.  I've been waiting for another platform to come along.  It hasn't yet,
> and I want to be able to keep using Amigas until I can see an alternative.
> That may well be a 486 (or P5) running OS/2 2.0, or OS/2 3.0 (Win NT), but
> not yet.  It may be a cheap risc system running NT - but not for a couple more
> years, I think.
>

For those of us who haven't used/owned a PC, time spent waiting for better Amigas
is time lost in PC knowledge investment.

> So, I haven't reached the end of the dead end yet, and the other tracks aren't
> clear yet.  I'll just have to keep going for the time being.
>

OK for you.

> >I told you you wouldn't like my solution. :)
>
> True.   :-)
>
>
> --
>
> David Meiklejohn                  | Internet : davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
> Computer Systems Officer, QDPI    | Fax      : +61 70 92 3593
> Mareeba, Australia                | Voice    : +61 70 92 1555

--
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

Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:21565 comp.sys.amiga.misc:12710