HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:     C= policy (Re: Apple problems "Home computer")
Distribution: world
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:33:08 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1992Apr15.021706.20065@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes:
>In article <root.01e7@rkamiga.UUCP> root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr12.213844.2389@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>Windows does not run in 386 protected mode.  
>
>Yes it does.  It even does paging in 386 protected mode. 

And if you throw away all your software, and then buy all new software that
runs in 32 bit protected mode, you will then be truly using you 386.

And you've just spent an abnormal amount of money.

Someone just mentioned in comp.risks that Windows 3.1 comes with disk
caching turned on, by default.  If a secretary who uses Word for Windows
all day saves her file, exits Word, and then shuts off her machine, there
goes all or some of her work.  She will have to explicitly go to a DOS
shell and sync the drives before she can shut off the machine.

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

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: April Fool's Day
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:50:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.30136
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <1992Apr1.113515.4260@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cmk57122@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher M. Kmiec) writes:
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:

>>For sale: A6000.

>>     CPU:  50Mhz 68040 and 50Mhz 486 multiprocessed.
>>     {... A6000 specs deleted ...}

>First of all, NEC 5D is only 19-inch. Second, I believe A6000 has
>a 50Mhz R4000.  

No, that was just a rumor from "The Bandito" in the June 1994 edition of
Amazing Computing.  We were going to use the new $99 version of the R4000 
with on-chip CPU emulation engine, but then Motorola came back with the 
MC156160, which is basically an 88110 with one extra execution unit -- a 68050 
integer engine.  It runs at 110MHz, fast enough.  It also comes with a complete
1995 set of "Computer Industry Trading Cards", collect them all.


-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      BIX: hazy
   "We can't be silent, because they might be giants" - The Might Be Giants
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 06:08:52 GMT
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN

In article <1992Mar31.135655.9663@ms.uky.edu>, justin@mik.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan) writes:
|> who? Commodore just brought out a decent UNIX. A/UX was the first fully  
|> POSIX-compliant UNIX in existence.Version 3 will be much-improved. Macs have 

	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
	Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

	Reality fault, Universe dumped. UNIX was the first POSIX compliant OS
	because POSIX IS UNIX relabeled so it's palatable to non-AT&T vendors.

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

|> integration the Amiga can only dream of. If I had a dollar for every time
!> I've seen or heard an Amiga fanatic say "I wish I had 32-bit QuickDraw," I'd
!> have as much money as John Sculley himself (at $16.x million a year).
|> 
	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.

	Sometimes you are good for a laugh, thank you for this one!

		-Rob
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sys.amiga.misc
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Upgrades and such
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:51:38 GMT

chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>You have extra halfbrite?  or you have DPaint?  If you have EHB then you don't
>have an 85 Amiga (or at least not a 100% 85 amiga), that would date it at late
>86..

Come on!  If he bought the machine in 1985, then it is an 85 Amiga.  By your
argument any upgrades to a machine advances it to the present day:  SCSI
controllers, high density drives, RAM boards, even a new joystick!

>Show me a non-developer A1000 that has 2.0 without an ad on (legally).

That is irrelevant.  I may add 2.0 to my A500, but that does not suddenly
make it a 1991 A500.

>Whether there is an amiga without an add on that can display these  is moot,
>since your article said that there was hardly any software that had modes your
>1000 could not support.  Perhaps you should have worded it more carefully.

His wording was correct, because he was not trying to play these word games.
Just as with any Amiga, you must add some graphics enhancement device to the
A1000 to be able to display 256 colors.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:34:33 GMT

In article <mcpjt!d@lynx.unm.edu> kholland@hydra.unm.edu (Kiernan Holland) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.174756.17361@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>har@ux.acs.umn.edu (--SeebS--) writes:
>>>
>>>Untrue. An '040 is three to five times faster in floating point. The
>>>25 Mhz 040 is only slightly faster than a 33 Mhz 486 in *integer*.
>>>
>>
>>Wrong, Peter.  Read the benchmarks that appeared here a while ago.  The
>>25MHz 486 is slightly *faster* than the 25MHz 68040 in integer performance,
>>but significantly slower in FP, although not 3-5 times.  Please look it
>>up; maybe it'll make you stop posting bullsh*t with such arrogant conviction.
>>
>Now what happens if you add a wietek math coprocessor???

Absolutely nothing, if your software doesn't support it, and that includes
almost all MSDOS software.  You're OK if your running under Unix, since it
provides an fp interface through a standard library, but most MSDOS stuff has
hard coded x87 instructions in it.


-- 

David Meiklejohn                  | Internet : davidme@qdpii.comp.qpdi.oz.au
Computer Systems Officer, QDPI    | Fax      : +61 70 92 3593
Mareeba, Australia                | Voice    : +61 70 92 1555
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: espen@coos.dartmouth.edu (Espen H. Koht)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom" ?
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:25:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

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.

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

>		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
--
---------------------------------- Espen H. Koht ------------------------------
|  My opinions are shareware:            | espen@dartmouth.edu                |
|  If you like them send me $10.   ;-)   | espen@coos.dartmouth.edu           |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: AppleEvents, how to they work?
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:44:24 GMT

Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com writes:

>>  No, AppleEvents avoid this.  You pass an open AppleEvent with the
>>parameter being the file identifier, and App B (assuming it is
>>AppleEvent aware), jumps straight to its OpenFile code (eliminating
>>the dialog boxes).

>Sounds reasonable.  I'm curious how programmers implement this.
>(I know squat about programming on the Mac.)

  It's pretty simple.  First you have to make sure that you have
separated out your GUI code from your actual action code.  You can
then install a handler for the particular AppleEvent (e.g.
 AEInstallEventHandler(kCoreEventClass, kAEOpenDocument, @openEvtRoutine,..)
  When you get an event (via WaitNextEvent), you first check to see whether
it's a high-level event.  If so and you only respond to AppleEvents, 
then you call AEProcessAppleEvent( event ), which automatically dispatches
to the appropriately installed handler.  
  Your handler then gets the appropriate parameters (routines are
provided in the Toolbox for obtaining the number of items in the list,
and extracting them one by one) and calls the factored out action code
(as would the GUI if you were doing this via the GUI).

  This is all pretty standard, but the nice thing is that there are a
large number of pre-defined data structures, plus the ability to send
lists of pre-defined data structures, or lists of lists etc...  And of
course, there are all the predefined messages in the AppleEvent
registry.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.                     NZ for the America's Cup!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: dano@usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Subject: Re: 040 and 486_
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:06:19 GMT

nradov@jarthur.claremont.edu (Slippery Jim) writes:

>This whole 040 vs. 486 discussion has about as much point as arguing how
>many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  People don't buy processors, 
>they buy systems of which the processor is just a part.  That's why a
>lot of purchasing decisions are made mostly on the basis of how many 
>SPECmarks a system can deliver at a given cost.  Few people outside this
>newsgroup seem to care about how elegant the instruction set is because
>it doesn't matter; all that counts is the final speed you get out of
>compiled code.  It is also pointless to make claims like, "The 040 is
>50% faster than the 486 on FP operations."  To have any kind of real
>world meaning, you would have to pick an arbitrary performance point and
>then see what complete system could reach that point for the fewest
>dollars.
>-Nick Radov (nradov@jarthur.claremont.edu)

Hurrah! Hurrah!!

I agree that it is the _computer_ the CPU is in more often than not, the
_software_ and _operating systems_ for different computers.  All this
talk about hard is like comparing engines without comparing the cars
they are in.  Multivalved V6 VS V8, Multivalved 4s VS V6s.  Get it?

I think this group betters serves other discussions.  LIke, for example,
why Clones are by far superior to Amigas.  (Purposeful flame-baiting) :)
:) :)

-Dan
.

--
Daniel Anthony Stephenson, player of Praetorius, namer of The Solarium.
dano@srl01.cacs.usl.edu das9674@usl.edu
"I can be, what I want to, and all I need is to get my boogie
down"- Al Jarreau.
From: ajaffe@amiganet.chi.il.us (Adi Jaffe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Atari Falcon (wasn't: Amiga Falcon)
Date: 5 Apr 92 05:21:40 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <KENTD.92Apr1111249@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com>,
kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton) writes:
>>>>>> On 27 Mar 92 22:18:23 GMT, jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH) said:
>
>
>Gerald> In article <1992Mar27.140353.25236@wam.umd.edu> cmedley@wam.umd.edu (EN
>iGMA Software) writes:
>>In article <mykes.1675@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwar
>tz) writes:
>>the SNES are superior to a stock A500 hands down, mainly because of the
>>superior 3D-scaling and rotation capabilities.  On top of that, the 8 bit
>>video simply beats the 32 or 64 color displays on the A500.
>>
>>(not to say the A500 isn't good for games, but just that I think that a
>>SNES is just a better game machine... now if only it had a keyboard)
>
>Gerald> Yeah, if it had a keyboard you might be able to get some good
>Gerald> laughs out of that, what is it, a 65816?  Whooopeee....Long live
>Gerald> the 6502.  NOT!
>
>Every review I've read of the SNES has panned it for that very reason.
>They can all be summarized as: "The built in hardware scaling graphics
>capabilities of the SNES are extremely cool, but in practice, the system
>is inferior to the Genesis because of the exceedingly lame CPU (which is
>both weaker than the 68K and running at *half* the speed of Genesis's
>68K)." 
>


Aaaaah, normally id say you Ft. Collins people are just a bunch of atomic
clockheads.... But, even I agree.. Nintendo's SNES sucks plainly because its
processor and resolution.. I read a while back in some greasy gamer mag stat
comparrisons between the Genesis' 320 X 200 display and the SNES weird
resolution like 192X200 ... The resolution of a basic NES was like 4 or 5
pixels lower than an SNES.. I suppose just enough so they could say "The SNES
has a higher resolution than the old NES" ...heheheh..

Pretty lame..


The 65816? Boy--im erect. Isnt that the same one as in the Apple IIGS? And
cantcha see how successful THAT platform is for software development!

WOW..
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 040 and 486_ (bunch O' Kaka anyway)
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:52:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.190041.16557@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:

><compiler bashing  deleted>

>>I think the best thing to do would be to use UNIX SVR4 and Gnu C on both
>>machines (with similar RAM) to see which produces faster results.  This would
>>give a reasonable overall CPU performance estimate.

>Sounds fair enough.  Why don't we ask Rob H. (frequent comp.unix.amiga poster)
>to perform the tests?  He has an A3000UX, uses a 386 with SVR4 and would
>probably run them if we asked nicely.  What sort of tests should be run?

Hold it. This sounds ike a very good idea, but we can not use just an
Amiga person. He could easily screen benchmarks to include the ones the Amiga does good on. We should see if we can get some people on comp.benchmarks to
do it. We should get a variety of tests, all CPU intensive (there is just
too many varying factors for I/O type of stuff). We should get some IBM
people to choose half the benchmarks, and Amiga people to choose the other
half. This will eliminate chances of people having some knowledge of certain
results doing well on their "prefered" computer. Now if all this could be
done, this would be a good idea. The best bet is to find say, a Unix magazine
that has benchmarks between the two.

Nish Patel   nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
?
From: ajaffe@amiganet.chi.il.us (Adi Jaffe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: HAM-E device
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:34:41 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <3398@tronsbox.UUCP>, tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (Kenneth Jamieson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.061336.22648@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs902125@ariel.yorku.
>ca (SHUK C YIP) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr1.142105.20264@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gerber@orion.astro.uiuc.ed
>u (Richard A. Gerber) writes:
>>>
>>>For the reasons given above, speculation was made that C= bought out
>>>Black Belt and was going to use the technology in a new Amiga model.
>>>Black Belt never denied this, which fueled the speculation. But as I
>>>infer from a post made yesterday, C= has (albeit unofficially) now denied
>>>these rumors.
>>>
>>Maybe Commdore has changed its mind from HAM-E to AVIDEO technology. It
>>is just a small board plug onto the Denise chip. (Also support
>>de-interlace and PIP)
>
>
>    RUMOR ALERT   RUMOR ALERT    RUMOR ALERT    RUMOR ALERT
>
>    For what it is wsorth (and that is probably nothing) - at the local Amiga
>    Users Group here in NJ I was speaking with someone who's word is usually
>    good.
>
>    He SPECIFICALLY mentioned knowing some of the people developing the
>    hardware to put the HAM-E technology into the Amiga for/with C=.
>
>    Followups from this to .advocacy (we need comp.sys.amiga.rumor :-).
>
>    Now, you can ignore this, disbeleive it or beleive it, you can even
>    flame me about it - but this is all he said to me so I can't tell
>    you anything more.
>
>-- 
>
>+--[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Lingerie, Consulting, RPG's and ANIME ]-+.sign
>|  Please send email for detailed product or catalogue information!  |ature
>|             Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1             |Virus
>|---NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by anybody!---|V3.2
>|              Original contents are Copyright (c)1992               |1992!
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>



What youre probably talking about is something I read in .INFO a couple months
back, where Black Belt Systems had offered to work with Commodore/other
developers as to establishing a retargetable graphics standard. No new news.


DMK
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro)
Subject: Re: PC Prices, Reality Check (was Re: switching to IBM)
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:45:29 GMT

In article <kumoviINN15i@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> stuartm@Eng.Sun.COM (StuartM) writes:

>Here is a sample PC 486 system, *WITH* all the bells and whistles:
>

[ itemized components deleted ]

>$ 2400	(All these prices are available in Computer Shopper, Prices in
>	Silicon Valley are about 5% - 10% less.  Check out MicroTimes
>	and Computer Currents)
>	(BTW, these systems are supposed to be running at around 14 MIPS.
>		according to various ads... (flame suit on.))


Your prices seem reasonable, but I would caution anyone that building
a system from scratch is not for the feint (faint? pardon my spelling)
hearted.  You will have no overall system warranty or compatibility
guarantees.  Plus you will have to pay shipping for all those
individual parts if you buy them from different places to get the best
deals (assuming mail-order).

A similar 486-33 ISA from a good clone vendor would be more in the
$2800-$3000 range, including shipping, though you will often get 8MB
RAM and ~= 200 meg hard drive (but no sound card, and probably not a
Sony monitor).  You might even get a 486DX2-50 for that price, and/or
an accelerated graphics card.

That's still pretty good, IMHO, though I'd personally look into
spending an extra $49 for an OS/2 2.0 upgrade.

>I am not saying that one is better than the other.  I just want to inform
>many Amiga users that a good 486/33Mhz system can be had for a lot less
>than most of the flame posters in this group would think.

That's true, but to be fair I also think some of the people on the PC
side tend to quote only the absolute lowest prices from noname clone
dealers.  I try to stick with the more reputable mail-order houses
when doing comparisons.

Paul
-- 
Paul Secinaro            | Synthetic Vision and Pattern Analysis Lab
pss1@kepler.unh.edu      | Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
p_secinaro@unhh.unh.edu  | University of New Hampshire
From: kdarling@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: *** ULTIMATE BASHING for PeeCee Users
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:59:32 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>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.

They're not necessarily mutually exclusive.  For instance, under OS-9
you can create a shared data space for messages without losing MP.

>jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>Does OS-9 have a GUI with a device-independent graphics engine consisting of
>>several hundred calls?  How about a windowing library?

No standard one, but there are several windowing systems available; ranging
from 32K to 300K code... and they're pretty well-featured.  Plus of course
there's a huge (megabytes) X Window system port :^)   Depends on your needs.

>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?  

Eeep!  160K or so of OS-9 code is *everything* needed to boot into a shell,
with windowing, with memory protection, with MSDOS file manager, all drivers,
true pipes, and so forth... NOT just for its MP!  To OS9 users, the Amiga
op sys sometimes looks as large and bloated as OS/2 does to you :-)

But again, OS9/68000 is written in asm.  The cpu-portable version (OS-9000)
is no doubt much larger, because it's written mostly in C.  I think most of
these OS size arguments are nullified partly by the high-level language used
by AmigaOS and OS/2, and partly by the feature-itis of today's systems.
That is: a large size is considered MUCH less of a downside these days,
because the bloat is mostly neat and handy accessory libraries.

best - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: sctconno@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Dave Connors)
Subject: Re: Jerry "knows" 486's faster than 68040.
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:50:07 GMT

nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:

>it is interesting how whenver Amiga owners are faced with evidence proving
>slower performance, they say, well it depends on the OS and the compiler
>and blah blah blah.

>All this proves is that compilers on Amigas suck, which means their
>applications will suck. And the OS sucks, so do not say anything more about
>how great your OS is, because you just claimed that it sucks.

Everything you say wreaks of fallacies. Why is it SO hard to just say
something productive. I assure you that 99% of the readers in csa.advocacy
DO NOT find your false conclusions at all entertaining, regardless of how
interesting you *think* (in your disillusion IBM owner mind - rotted away
from over exposure to Intel chips) they are.

-- 
WARNING: people quota (/sol/earth) exceeded  | Dave Connors              //
Delete all IBM owners        ----------------  D.Connors@sct.gu.edu.au \X/
God# rm -R *.IBM.people     |  " My opinions may have changed, but the 
God#                        |        fact that I am right hasn't. "
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