HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story)
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
Originator: eas3714@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:30:13 GMT

In article <C0np2J.69C@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, Paul Prescod writes:
>
> IBM was singletasking in 1981, when Apple was single tasking, before
> Commodore was single tasking etc.  The reason they didn't start out
> with a multitasking operating system is because with 64k of ram, you
> can't load two useful programs, plus a multitasking operating system.

No, this is not the reason.  Because in 1981, an operating system did
not have to be at least 512k long.  There WAS a real-time multitasking
operating system available for a personal computer in 1981.  I'm sure
there are others in advocacy who could name it (and perhaps other OS's
too.. there may be others) for you.  Hint: Change one character in the
name of IBM's latest offering.  The real reason was probably because
they already had DOS for the 8086, and a multitasking system was a
back burner project until they realized others were starting to beat
them to the punch.  It doesn't take 8 years to develop a personal
computer operating system, sorry.

> 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.

"multitasking was feasable".  This is the same company who releases a
product that needs 8MEGS of RAM to run applications comfortably.  Today,
this is not so bad, but they did not have to wait until having 8 megs was
feasable.  And "work" is a relative term... how hard?

As for influences, the argument is silly.  Of course, OS/2 borrowed some
from AmigaDOS, and MacOS, and Openlook, and... just like AmigaDOS borrowed
from MacOS, Openlook..etc.  Feel free to name others, I'm not in a list
making mood...  I'd be MORE worried if OS designers DIDN'T borrow good ideas
from each other.

-- 
"THAT is a DRY turtle.  That turtle is NOT moist!"
Ezra Story, a student at RIT, and
eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu, his trusty(?) mailing address.
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Distribution: world
Date: 31 Dec 92 09:29:00 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1hsg3gINNg7s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:
>
>In a previous article, danaf@vccsouth26.its.rpi.edu (Frank R. Dana Jr.) says:
>
>>In article <1992Dec19.180750.2820@seas.gwu.edu>, gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>|> papresco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>|> >In fact, if anyone was borrowed from it was the Mac, that was real
>>|> >competition for IBM machines.  Nobody at IBM has ever, or will ever,
>>|> >even notice the Amiga exists as far as competition or innovation goes.
>>|> 
>>|> True.  They just cover up the Amiga name with a convenient sticker...
>>|> something like 'NewTek'.
>>
>>Like the fascinating Byte article from years ago, which displayed an Amiga
>>with the logo airbrushed off - "To preserve journalistic neutrality." 
>>
>>..Never mind that on the facing page was a PC with the IBM logo prominently
>>displayed....
>>
>>**SIGH**
>>
>>I don't think it's true that IBM (and, by association, the major PC 3rd-party
>>companies..) doesn't know the Amiga exists. I think they will never acknowledge
>>its presence in their closed-minded little worlds, but it is there. And I think
>>the Amiga has played its part in the evolution of computing - fast, cheap 
>>multitasking, great sound, and the true development of the desktop video 
>>market. And if that is our small contribution to the computing community in
>>general, I for one am content.
>>
>  IF you folks haven't figured it out- this is the way to fight someone:
>IGNORE IT. This is the evangelical way of defeating an enemy. When you
>ignore it or reap praise on it, you startle it and confuse it and they
>don't know how to attack it. By ignoring it, you don't even give the enemy
>a chance at the open battlefield, effectively shutting them up. This is why
>Apple doesn't even consider Commodore a problem, also probably because the
>products being released from Apple in 1993 and 1994 will shut Commodore
>down in a few years.

Which products are those?  Check out the price of an IBM PowerPC ready
diskless workstation.  Perhaps Apple will sell the PowerPC machines
cheaply by sticking the chips on a 16 bit memory machine.  A full blown
PowerPC will be more expensive than a Quadra 950.

The Newton won't shut anybody down.  It will probably end up as an albatross
around Apple's neck.  There are very few executives who actually want to
walk around carrying a pentop computer all day.

Neither IBM, Apple, or Commodore are going away.  If you can't see that all
these machines have their markets, and that there are hundreds of other 
computer companies selling systems in yet other markets, then you have a
very narrow view of the computer industry.


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

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
From: jprad@faatcrl.faa.gov (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:07:24 -0500
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Pomona, NJ
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: faatcrl.faa.gov

jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:

>Yes, but VM can help you make the best use of your physical RAM (by swapping
>out unused code).

  But how does the system "know" which code to swap out?  Is it the entire
code segment for a program, or just sections of it?  

  If the entire program gets swapped out it sounds like a simple-minded task 
switcher to me, not a multitasking OS.

  If it's sections of a program you're after then an overlay manager sounds
like a better bet since the application's author(s) would know best how to
construct the overlay map for a minimal ram image during run time.

  Funny, but all references to VM that I've run into point to data, not code
being the occupant, it allows for larger datasets for time-intensive
operations, like sorts and the like.  It's certainly faster to sort via VM
then dedicate an operator and a few drives for a shift or two of reel
swapping...

  But for code?  Blech!

  -jack-
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Distribution: world
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:08:35 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1993Jan6.213219.10895@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> gregg@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (gregg.g.wonderly) writes:
>> Yes, but VM can help you make the best use of your physical RAM (by swapping
>> out unused code).
>
>I have been reading some of this on going exchange and think that there
>is a mix of terms being used that is not correct.  VM does not imply
>swapping or paging, it only indicates that one physical address does
>not necessarily appear at the same location in the virtual address
>space of one or more processes.  You can have VM without paging and
>swaping and doing so can provide the ability to do many things which a
>strictly physical addressing scheme would prohibit.  What the amiga
>needs is VM without paging/swapping.  This would allow the per process
>protected address spaces that so many people feel is important to
>controlling the damage done by errant processes.  It would also provide
>a new start for resource tracking since the only usable implementation that
>would by default work for all processes would involve the creation of a
>new set of exec functions for passing messages, and creating other
>shared memory based objects.

Yup.  I posted this the last time the VM debate came up.


--

Rick Kelly		Rick's Amiga		Framingham, Mass.

		   merk!rmkhome!rkamiga!root

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: iank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy)
Subject: Re: HELP--AMIGA OR IBM PC CLONE?
Date: 07 Jan 93 22:36:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan6.231056.24356@usl.edu> das9674@ucs.usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>In article <Ray_Hines.08b3@dream.uucp> Ray_Hines@dream.uucp (Ray Hines) writes:
>>Yup, they can indeed take all sorts of monitors, video cards, etc.  If
>>you're REALLY into graphics power on the Amiga, go out and by a VIVID 24
>>bit card with 4 co-processers.  The manufacture says it is faster than a
>>$200,000 Silicon Graphics Workstation. Wheeeeeeeeeee!
>>
>Hmm, how do these type of coprocessors you can add for the Amiga
>stack up to localbus ATI Graphics Ultra Pro or The Diamond SuperStealth?

They crush a ATI or Diamond card. But cost ~2000.00 bucks or more. The
card he was talking about is essentially a 24bit 3D rendering engine
with realtime response and because the Amiga lacks RTG/DIG at this
time this card will only run apps written for it. Od course the
manufacturer may have some sort of hack to get Workbench running
on it, but that aint from C= so I really don't count it.

I really wish I could have added an ATI Graphics Ultra Pro
type card to my A3000 (for less than $500!). I wouldn't have
sold it then for a A1200.

All of you out there who are always saying "Windoze is slow" have
obviously never used a modern Windows machine. I just bougt my parents
a Dell 486DX/33 with localbus S-3 video and it screams at 1024x768x8bits.
Word scrolls really fast (way faster than an A4000/Final Copy
doing 256 colors at 640x480).

I truly lookforeward to RTG and "Intuition Accelerator" video cards.

BTW: The Dell cost $2700 with 320 MB HD and 8MB ram + 15" multiscan monitor
and can take a Pentium when they come out. I really think that if C= included
a monitor in the current price of the A4000 it would be a real big hit!
The price I paid for the DELL was a special deal I got throught work BTW.

-- 
"Apple's attitude toward its ROM code is a little like that of a rich kid
toward his inheritance. Not actually knowing how to create wealth himself,
he guards what he has with hysterical fervor." - John Perry Barlow
MAIL : IANK@MICROSOFT.COM			 Crime and Puzzlement
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: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:00:04 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Andy Finkel (andy@cbmvax.commodore.com) wrote:
: >
: >No.  *IF* the MS employee's article was factual, it invalidates one of my
: >previous statements, but still does nothing to prove that Windows is not an
: >OS.
:
: But you now have to say that Windows _does_ depend of MSDOS, and is
: not completely stand alone.
:

Yes.

:
: Check your disk labels;  mine say 'Graphical Environment'.  Check
: the Microsoft manual;  mine say 'graphical environment'.   (I didn't
: keep the box, so I can't look there)
:

Check the ads.  They say "Operating System".

: >
: >Of course I had checked.  The information I posted was gathered from
: >what I read in several descriptions of FastDisk.  *IF* the MS employer
: >who posted here was correct, those descriptions were wrong.  The point is
: >that Windows supports real filesystem drivers, and in theory does not
: >require DOS.  FastDisk's limitation is a compatibility issue; nothing more.
:
: How did you check ?  Did you find documentation that says 'Windows uses
: no calls from MSDOS' ?  Did you run a scan of all the interrupt vectors,
: tracing the code they point to ?  To paraphrase yourself (in this
: very thread) HOW DID YOU CHECK ?
:

I just told you.  The information I posted was based on what I read in
several publications.  They all described it as a driver which causes 
Windows to go directly to the hardware for disk access, bypassing DOS/BIOS.

:
: Windows is certainly an OS;  as long as you don't exclude some of
: its parts.  Wasn't it you, yourself who claims that its being
: sold in two parts for 'marketing reasons' ?
:

Yes, and I'm still making that claim.

:
: andy
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| 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: engb@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Ben Eng)
Subject: Re: tcl on the Amiga [was Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...]
Organization: Jet Penguin Lavatories
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:33:33 GMT

In <1993Jan11.195606.8432@bmerh85.bnr.ca> Hamish.Macdonald@bnr.ca (Hamish Macdonald) writes:

>>>>>> jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) wrote:

>Jordan> [...]  I think porting tcl to the Amiga would be a Very Good
>Jordan> Thing indeed - especially if enough intuition interface was
>Jordan> provided to give something similar in power to tk.

>I could have sworn that TCL had been ported by Karl Lehenbauer.

In what year?  Tcl and especially Tk have evolved by leaps and bounds
since just a few months ago even.  In a little while longer, floating
point math will become a standard part of the base language.  Tcl is
useful in and of itself, but without the Tk GUI and widget layer the
bare language interpreter is no more than a nice scripting language.

I would love to have Tk working on the Amiga.  It is one of the
absolute best prototyping tools I have found anywhere.  And the
nice part is that the prototypes can easily be fleshed out into
full blown applications in just a few days of work.  Really!  I
have complete prototypes of two commercial applications in under
six hours EACH.  It is nice in that after you have written one
full blown application, a great deal of the code can be reused
by cutting, pasting, and doing some lexical search/replace.

Another really cool benefit of Tcl/Tk applications is the level
of fault tolerance.  Code in Tcl seldom "crashes".  Syntax and
semantic errors will cause nasty messages, but the exceptions
can be trapped and handled cleanly.  The dynamic nature of the
language is beautiful for creating applications that require
scripting ability.

If I had the time and I didn't have to migrate between countries
every little while I would volunteer to port Tk over to the Amiga.
I probably will for myself eventually, but it will take a long
long time due to other priorities.

A Tk/Tcl port would not be a one time affair.  A new release with
major language mutations occurs about once every six months as
Professor Ousterhout distributes a new evolutionary release.  A
Tk/Tcl port would have to be an ongoing affair---much like the
gcc port, I suppose.  :-)

Ben
-- 
e-mail: engb@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca or ben@jetpen.gts.org (Ben Eng)
UofT EngSci 9T2                   ``We are all masochists here.''
Home: (416)-979-8761, (416)-979-7885
From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 5 Jan 1993 20:02:46 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1993Jan5.162612.22732@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Greg, so far this discussion has focused on what happens to a system when
>you add VM.  Why are you now talking about removing RAM chips?  Does one
>somehow imply the other?

Of course not, but it proves that VM is not a reason to not have
enough physical memory to run the applications you want.

>Right, but if you try to cross over the boundaries of physical memory on
>a machine *without* VM, that machine will not only get down on its knees,
>it will get buried six feet underground.

Not true, it simply refuses to do it, that's all.

>VM does not impede anything.  In fact, it can only show improved performance
>over a non-VM system with the same amount of RAM.

Not necessarily.  On a non-VM system such as the Amiga, you simply
free up some resources and retry.  On a VM system, information that
hasn't been touched in a while gets yanked out.  That's bad news for
image processing and lots of other types of work that use large
amounts of data.

>There you go, talking about removing RAM chips again.

You made a statement that translated into a belief that VM doesn't
hinder performance.  Remove your ram, and find out otherwise.  I think
that perhaps the reason you may like VM so much is that you haven't
gotten much use out of it.  Which would be a good thing.

Listen.  If I had something I wanted to run that I didn't have enough
ram for, I'd go get more ram.  Isn't it the logical thing to do?

--
(: (: (: (: 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: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:11:13 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Michael van Elst (mlelstv@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de) wrote:
:
: >If you're talking about multitasking several non-CPU-intensive apps, well,
: >VM could only be an advantage there, obviously.
:
: Think about it. It doesn't matter if a program uses little or much CPU
: time. As soon as it hits paged out memory it will stall until the OS
: has loaded the page into memory again.
:

YOU think about it.  Take a non-VM system with the same amount of RAM.  As
soon as IT reaches the limit, it will stall until you turn off the computer
and reboot.

:
: That leaves VM on a PC as a stopgap to avoid failing programs because
: they ran out of memory.
:

Or to free up RAM for more applications through the use of demand paging.
It would be nice if the Amiga had a similar stopgap.

:
: >Take a course in OS design.
:
: Another one ?
:

Yes.

:
: Michael van Elst
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| 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: dmiller@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (David L. Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: RISC Amiga?
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:29:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: serval.1993Jan12.202955.3041
Organization: Washington State University Tri-Cities

In article <1993Jan12.172850.1523@athena.mit.edu>, fihsu@athena.mit.edu (Hsu I-wei) writes:
|> The 68040 on the A4000 is on a separate card rather than the motherboard.
|> This suggests that maybe C= will allow an A4000 owner to swap his 68040 card
|> for a 68060 at a discounted price, or at the very least you can sell the
|> 68040 card to someone owning an AGA with a 68030 card. (Or sell it to an
|> A3000 owner.. are the CPU slots the same for both?) I hope this helps you
|> if you do get an A4000. Seems that you were ready to throw away a 68040 card
|> when it could save you hundreds of dollars upgrading to the 68060.
|> 
Not to mention the fact that it becomes very quick and easy for C= to produce and
introduce the A4000/060.  If they play it right, they could be the *first* manufacturer
to introduce an '060 machine!

|> Francis
|> 
|> 

-- 
*****************************************************************************
David L. Miller                       Internet: dmiller@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Systems Programmer/Network Analyst      BITNET: MILLERD@WSUVM1
Washington State University Tri-Cities    UUCP: ...!yoda!dmiller
100 Sprout Road                          
Richland, WA 99352                       Phone: (509)375-9245
*****************************************************************************
From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 5 Jan 1993 04:58:04 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1993Jan4.204108.367@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Hardly.  Do you have any idea how VM works, or what it does?  If you're
>talking about multitasking several CPU-intensive apps, a decent VM system
>can only help.  Yes, that's right.  The application's working set always
>remains in RAM, while the dormant part is swapped out, resulting in more free
>RAM for applications, WITHOUT any significant performance degradation.  This
>means that you can multitask more CPU-intensive applications than you could
>on a system without VM while not lowering your performance.

You'd be swapping out unused code, yes.  I contend that in
cpu-intensive applications, the overhead created by swapping brings
forth a NEED to avoid VM due to the INCREDIBLE, and that's a BIG one,
performance hit you take.

Have you ever used a NeXT with 4mb of ram?  OS/2 with the minimum?

VM can bring systems to their knees.  And it does, regularly, for
people that cross over the boundaries of physical memory.

Why do you think people upgrade their NeXT systems to 8 megabytes and
beyond?  It's not because they don't have a big enough swapfile, you
know.  After all, how much were those 310-MB hd's?

>If you're talking about multitasking several non-CPU-intensive apps, well,
>VM could only be an advantage there, obviously.

Generally, it's a combination of both.  I use interactive
applications, and I _DEMAND_ real-time response.  After all, I'm not
running some god-forsaken X-windows server.  Click.  wait.  wait.
wait.  wait.  Oh, look, the window opened.  I want real-time response
from a system, and real-time systems should deliver it.  VM impedes
that, there's no way around it.

>Seriously, all these claims of VM slowing down performance are absolute
>rubbish.  Take a course in OS design.

How thick of you.  You act as if we haven't.  I'd advise you to use
the systems that have VM a little more.  Remove everything except the
minimum configuration of ram, and you'll see just what VM can do when
you load it with activity.  Even if you only get light to moderate use
of your VM, ANY swap can cripple performance.

Frankly, I'd rather have an ISA bus.  (NOT!)

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: tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran)
Subject: Re: A4000 Pricing
Organization: Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:19:28 GMT

In article <1ihl9cINNchd@mozz.unh.edu> ggg@kepler.unh.edu (Gregory G Greene)
writes:

>   why is it called a powerup deal when you don't have to previously own 
>   an Amiga to powerup from?  Why not just lower the retail price instead.
>   I hope CBM extends it past March.  I was thinking of getting an A1200
>   with large HD, but right now I am only about $900 dollars away from being
>   able to afford the A4000.  

Good question. But we're dealing with CBM Marketing, which of course is
an oxymoron :). In any event, I'd wait for the A4000. Once RTG arrives,
you'll have CPU and graphics modularity, while the A1200 will always
be geared towards the console market. Adding fast RAM alone to the A1200
will be a substantial investment for the short term.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy