From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls)
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:51:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.175616.29902@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>>
>>>Well, if the Intel-based machine cannot even hope to compete, then why does
>>>*my* 386 clone consistently perform better than a comparably equipped A3000?
>>>Get the drift, Skip?  Your casual claim of Amiga superiority doesn't mean
>>>squat without proof.
>>
>>Okay, here is a little proof for you.  I can go around the corner and start
>>an ftp transfer from the PC to a Sun, walk back to my A3000, start a transfer
>>of the same file, see that it is finished, walk back to the PC, and the PC is
>>still doing the transfer.  The A3000 is on the same subnet as the PC and both
>>are using 16bit Ethernet cards.
>>
>
>This depends more on the network card and software than the CPU or
>architecture.  I've seen *very* good FTP transfer rates on PC's.  In all
>honesty, though, I haven't seen any Amigas on networks.

You are right about some PCs having good transfer rates, our 486-33 running
Mach is nearly as fast as the Suns.  But the PC that I use for DOS work is
horrible for any sort of transfers.  As we are part of a state institution,
we must buy everything from the lowest bidder.  A few years ago when the 386
was new there were only a few vendors and the lowest bidder was usually a
reputable company.  Now, it seems that anyone with a screwdriver can build
a clone from parts, so we end up with total junk.  If it were up to me or
to one of the professors here, I am sure that we would have some very nice
and fast PCs, but the fat-ass administrators will never let that happen.

This is a bit off the subject, but hey, I can write about anything here.  :-)

Anyway, last year the MCSR was preparing to purchase 15 or so SparcStation
IIs and IPCs for the remote sites. (MCSR is the Mississippi Center for 
Supercomputer Research, bet y'all didn't think hicks like us had Crays and 
thangs like that  :-)  The Sun reps had a few demo units to show the various
political types (people with no clue at all).  Everything went smoothly until
some redneck (I can talk about them because I am one) complained that he
could not understand why such a little box (the IPC) could cost so much money.
The moral of this tale is that computer manufacturers need to use really big
boxes with flashing lights, knobs, and dials if they want to sell them to
the hicks in this state (and probably to hicks elsewhere).  :-)

>>I can compile the C source to a fractal generator on both machines, with the
>>necessary changes for the different graphics functions, and the A3000 will 
>>not only compile the code in less time, the fractal is also generated in a 
>>fraction of the time.  Both machines are using 16 color 640x480 screens and
>>the only graphics calls (inside the main loop) are to set the color and draw
>>a pixel.
>>
>
>That's *your* experience.  In *my* experience, Borland C++ 3.0 compiles
>faster than anything I've ever seen anywhere, including the Amiga.  It

Faster than the IBM RS/6000 model 550 that I have been using?  That thing
treats "cc prog.c" like a carriage return!

>pre-compiles header files, so that they only have to be read once for the
>whole project.  Is there an Amiga compiler that does this?

Sure, I have been using the BLAZEC++ compiler (1.5j beta) for a couple of 
weeks now and it not only pre-compiles the header files, it generates the
executable before I even think of the application!  My hard disk is filled
with lots of programs that I have not even dreamed of yet!  

>About your fractal, your example doesn't prove diddly.  Did the program
>use FP?  Did the Amiga have an FPU?  Did the PC?  What graphics library
>were you using on the PC?  In my experience, Windows 3.0 is *much* faster
>on a decent VGA at 640x480x16 than Workbench on a similar graphics
>configuration.  And Windows 3.1 is much faster than 3.0.

You probably get to use much nicer PCs than I do, but that goes with the
territory (poor school versus rich company).  The program can be any one
from a fractal textbook which may or may not use FP, and I can choose
whether to compile it using the FP option on either machine.  Every A3000
has an FPU and yes the PC has an FPU (the new PD BSD386 actually requires
an FPU!).  The library on the PC is from Borland.

No matter how I configure Windows on that machine, it is still too slow.
The local DOS/PC/Windows gurus have optimized it, yet they agree that it
is slow.  The question still remains as to why a machine that would seem
to be so capable is so slow.

>>Windows 3.x on the PC only makes things worse (I would love to try out OS/2,
>>but no one here wants to try it until it is more commmonplace), but it is
>>the only way that the PC can "multitask".
>>
>
>Windows is the only way the PC can multitask?  Try OS/2 and UNIX, and *then*
>tell me that.

I think that I mentioned my desire to try out OS/2 in my original statement.
And I do use UNIX on PCs, but I have not been impressed.  Why does the PC
have to try to be such a do-everything box?  I have learned to use computers
for what they do best instead of trying to force them to become something
that they are not.  I do my Ada & X development on an RS/6000, play Netrek
on a Sun, use the 486 Mach box for ftp (it has lots of drive space and no
decent application software to tie it up), use a PC for preparing Lotus 123 
assignments for my class, and use another PC for compiling and modifying NOS 
for my networks class.

My Amiga provides a way to really enjoy using a computer.  If the Amiga could 
do all of the above (and maybe it can) it might be nice, but if I spent all 
of my time being productive on my Amiga I would probably start to hate it.

And right now it is time for me to forget about computers and have a beer... 

>| Jerry J. Shekhel
>| jerry@polygen.com

Skip Sauls                     //    Graduate Student & Instructor
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu    \X/     CS Department, University of Mississippi