HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cadwallader@forty2.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: A3010 views
Reply-To: cadwallader@forty2.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:29:35 GMT


>for instance, MiG29 on an ARM2@8MHz is MUCH faster than the same game on the
>Amiga 500 - simply because on the 500, the CPU is doing all the work as the
>blitter can't draw polygons.  I've heard that the Amiga programmers are
>chuffed with 400 polygons/sec, but IMHO MiG29 on the Arc must be doing more
>like 1000/sec

True, indeed, but a little inaccurate. The blitter CAN draw polygons, in
polygon fill mode (!), it is the math that slows the rendering... 
undoubtedly the `undoing' of the A600 is it's poor CPU :-(

>And of course, programmers on the Arc are really only now showing what can be
>done - for instance, many Amiga owners drool on about the "copper" chip which
>does "raster bars" and they think that because the Arc has no copper the
>Arc games will never have raster bars...

The power of the copper goes far deeper than simple raster bars, don't forget.
These are the simplest use of the copper chip. The ECS copper can change the
contents of ANY hardware register, at a resolution of 1 scanline vertically
and 4 pixels horizontally. So I have seen, for example shimmering/mirroring
effects, scrolling, twisting of text scrollers etc.. all with the copper. One
of the nicest effects I have seen is to use the *horizontal* resolution to
change colour registers too, so there is (e.g.) copper raster-strips 4-pixels
wide waving up and down sinusoidally, (hard to describe). Another interesting
example was a small demo that produced multiple scrolltexts, (upside down,
double height etc...) with the copper operating on a screen in memory 
just 9-pixels high (the original scroll). The copper was used to duplicate
this many times over and induce different effects down the screen. The
"colourful" overall effect was actually again copper tricks on a 1-colour
screen. The BEST part of Amiga gfx kit is definitely the copper, IMO. 

BTW - I don't know what changes have been made to the copper in the AGA
chipset?!

>A600 = poor cousin

Don't forget too, that the A600 is being pushed down as a `console-beater',
it is essentially almost 4-5 year old technology now. New Amigas are
promised based on an '020 and having the AGA chipset.... we can hope! :-)

Now, can someone tell me how to access .advocacy from MXRN before I get
flamed????

								- JIM CAD*
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
From: goodwin@edieng.enet.dec.com (Pete Goodwin)
Subject: Re: A3010 views
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:50:52 GMT


In article <1992Sep11.122231.22334@rdg.dec.com>, cadwallader@forty2.enet.dec.com () writes...

>	I posted my (disappointed views) on the new A3010 a while back
>expecting some response which could perhaps turn my view somewhat... it
>didn't happen though: anyone want to give their views on what they think
>of the A3010, how it matches up to the competition and whether they
>think it will take off?

Compared to the Amiga 600 the A3010 is expensive - the Amiga 600 costs 300 (is
that with or without VAT?), the A3010 costs 499 (inc. VAT). As for whether it
will take off, more than likely!

As to how it compares with Amigas, I'm stuck because I know a lot about
Archimedes but zilcho about Amigas. Even despite the demos you've shown me,
Jim. The resolution of the Amigas was lower (320 x 256) but then it has extra
graphics hardware which makes up for it (or puts people off?).

>	I have an Amiga 500Plus w/ 2Meg ChipRAM OS2.04 and 100Mb HD at
>the mo and am waiting for new `AA' chipset machines to arrive, HOWEVER
>whilst I wait and watch I keep note of new changes... like /|\ Falcon030
>and Acorn A3010... so what do you reckon?

Are the `AA' chipset going to be released for the lower end Amigas? 24 bit
graphics is still not standard on the Archimedes, although there are some new
boards in the pipeline, and a couple of existing ones.

>	FWIW - I have seen A310s and such in action and haven't been
>"stunned" as I expected. I did like the A5000 I played with a while back
>in Heelas store in Reading, but again I got the feeling that if I bought
>that I might as well buy an Amiga 3000/25MHz w/ 50Mb HD 2Mb for 1300.

Depends on what you consider stunning, I guess. When I saw the demos on the
Amigas I couldn't help thinking they looked a bit lacking in detail and
graphics. However, I'm sure we could both find pictures/demos that we thought
were 'stunning'.

- JIM CAD*

Pete Goodwin
goodwin@system.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
From: loek@pico8.nt.el.utwente.nl (Loek L. Frederiks)
Subject: RISCOS 3.1 and A3000s
Summary: RISCOS 3.1 slow ?
Keywords: RISCOS 3.1,ARM2,A3000
Organization: Utwente
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:50:19 GMT

A few people are telling around that RISCOS 2 is too slow
for ARM 2 machines. I simply can't believe this nonsense.
Why would it be so slow :

o Acorn programmers have made a mess of RISCOS 3.1. I thought that
  writing a new version of an OS is keeping the routines which are
  Ok, replacing or improving routines which are not working fine
  ('filecore in use') and adding new features. This would mean that
  RISCOS 3.1 has at least the same performance of RISCOS 2.0.

o Acorn has made use extensively of the ARM 3 features ? I know there
  instructions concerning with cache usage, but in principle the
  instruction set of the ARM 2 and ARM 3 are the same. There is only
  a speed difference. If RISCOS 3.1 is slow, it would also mean that the
  performance of an ARM 3 (and ARM 2) is decreased.

So I think, just like other people, that ARM 3 users must not complain
about the speed of RISCOS 3.1 on ARM 2 machines. I think that even on
a ARM 2 RISCOS is still very fast. So, is there somebody who has
RISCOS 3.1 installed in his A3000/A4xx/A3xx machine (no ARM3) ?

Loek.
<loek@nt.eltn.utwente.nl>
From: lithgow@usl.com (Malcolm Lithgow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
Subject: Re: RISCOS 3.1, the final conclusions..
Date: 14 Sep 92 09:44:11 GMT

[In message "Re: RISCOS 3.1, the final conclusions..", Julian Wright writes:]
>The difference between Oblique and Italics seems to be that the so-called
>Oblique fonts use the same outlines as their non-oblique siblings (the
>outlines file in the rom is a text file with the filename of the parent
>outlines file and little else), whereas the Italics fonts have their own
>outlines.

This is one of the many areas where Acorn's font system shows some
knowledge of typography, as opposed to Apple's laughable first (two)
attempt(s) on the Mac (and Lisa -- in fact their first three -- Lisa,
Mac, and Apple IIGS). Even Acorn's first system recognized that an
'Oblique' font is different from an 'Italic' font, whereas Apple
treated Italic as if it were Oblique -- blech. Look at a Mac's font
menu and you'll see that the 'Italic' entry is merely a skewed version
of the 'Plain' entry. Icky-poo!

For those who don't know the difference: an Oblique font is merely a
geometrically manipulated version of a Roman font (an upright one),
whereas an Italic font is a completely different font that bears a
family resemblance to other members of the family (similar block size,
x-height, verticals-to-horizontals-width ratio, etc.).

Therefore, Oblique fonts can obviously be implemented by the simple
expedient of transforming the Roman font. (Italics need their own
definition.) Since RO 2.00 fonts couldn't be transformed by a 2D
transformation matrix like RO 3.x0 fonts can be, the RO 2.00 Oblique
fonts needed their own definition, whereas (using that word a bit much,
aren't I?) RO 3.x0 Oblique fonts can simply refer to the Roman
definition and include a transformation matrix to be applied to it.

Pretty damn clever, I must admit. I presume this is what is happening
(I haven't got RO 3.10 yet, and haven't heard about this before).

Disclaimer: I am merely an enthusiastic amateur, so some of the above
may be slightly misleading.

As to the post about RO 3.10 being a smaller improvement over RO 2.00
than RO 2.00 was over Arthur -- too right! If RO 3.10 were as great an
improvement over RO 2.00 as RO 2.00 was over Arthur, Acorn would be
selling an OS that was better in every way than all of the research
OS's combined! I would say that the upgrade is more like Mac System 6.0
to System 7.0 -- lots of changes, but no changes in the fundamental
nature of the OS.

Anyway, once again congrat's Acorn.

-Malcolm.  lithgow@usl.com  These are merely my opinions.
From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
Subject: Re: Limit on files per directory
Organization: My Individual Private Site
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:53:48 CET
Reply-To: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org

In <1992Sep10.101512.15274@bradford.ac.uk>, Simeon Walker writes:

> A while back on c.s.a I read about ADFS having a limit of 77 files per
> directory.    [...]                    What I ended up with was a
> directory with 102 files in it, over 80 of which were 12K chunks of
> uucode.

Err? I think this is impossible.
The 77 files per directory limit is not imposed by ADFS itself but some
higher instance in the filing system hierarchy, FileCore, I guess. All
entries of directory are stored in 2kB (fixed). This gives 26 bytes per
entry plus a few bytes for extra purposes. There simply isn't enough
room two accomodate more entries.
Both on ADFS and SCSI I've run a couple of times into this annoying
limit. On the other hand the fixed directory size allows for easier
caching of directory entries -- compared to my Atari ST's DOS-like
filing system RISC OS file management is blindingly fast.


bye
-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber, Germany           naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
From: goodwin@edieng.enet.dec.com (Pete Goodwin)
Subject: Re: Arcs and Graphics...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 10:38:47 GMT


In article <1992Sep5.145226.27814@odin.diku.dk>, seifert@diku.dk (Michael Seifert) writes...

>Before buying an Archimedes ask yourself the question if you can live with
>4 megs of memory. Any mem above 4 meg is expensive enough to blow any
>budget off its feet. Also anything above 8 megs is virtually impossible.
> 
>So the machine is kind of outdated. Who dares say 'I can only put 8 megs
>in my 32 bit computer???'

That's funny, I seem to be able to run with 4Mbytes of RAM. I do raytracing, C
compilations, DTP, and still have room to spare. Not all at once, of course!

Why do you think you need 8Mbytes for? To run UNIX? To load very big pictures?
To do heavy DTP?

Pete Goodwin
goodwin@system.enet.dec.com
From: ppxpmd@mips.nott.ac.uk (P.Debenham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spice 3A6
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:41:57 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, University of Nottingham

I would be interested in Spice having been meaning to get it to work on the
Arc for months (and like many other things having never got round to it!).

Sorry for a posting but your mail address bounces with every combination I
could think to try.
Peter Debenham
From: seifert@diku.dk (Michael Seifert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arcs and Graphics...
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:53:02 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

banksie@khantazi.welly.gen.nz (Philip R. Banks) writes:

>   So ask yourself how large a amounts of *data* do you want to use? If it
>is less than 3 Megs per chunk then the Arc will handle the job just fine,
>without resorting to 8 Meg options. If you wish to handle more data than
>this then consider buying an A540 where you can have up to 16 Megs easily.

ARGH! Get off it! He was talking about a budget! And unless he has
go zillions of GBP he wont get it. I would loved 8 megs in my 410
if I could afford it, but the price is outrageous!

--Michael

--
Michael Seifert               |   OS/2 - The Nightmare Continues..    |
seifert@diku.dk               |   PS/2+OS/2 = (PS+OS)/2 = 0.5*(PS+OS) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Please, won't somebody tell me what diddie-wa-diddie means?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arcs and Graphics...
From: banksie@khantazi.welly.gen.nz (Philip R. Banks)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 15:21:50 +1200
Reply-To: banks_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Organization: My Arc.

seifert@diku.dk (Michael Seifert) writes:

> Before buying an Archimedes ask yourself the question if you can live with
> 4 megs of memory. Any mem above 4 meg is expensive enough to blow any
> budget off its feet. Also anything above 8 megs is virtually impossible.

   Cobblers. What do you think A540 does? Hmmm?

> So the machine is kind of outdated. Who dares say 'I can only put 8 megs
> in my 32 bit computer???'

   Ask yourself if you *need* 8+ Megs. Given that you have 512k - 2 Meg of
OS in ROM, loosing little memory to OS workspace, you normally have (well on
my 4 Meg RO2 machine with utilities loaded) 3.3 Meg of memory free for use.
Indeed for me running a UUCP session, doing some compiling using the DDE and
reading news all simulatenously leaves me with still 1.2 Meg free. (And this
includes an editor, a news reader, incorp utility, Settype utility, AppDock
utility, UUIO task, C compiler and a Make utility.)

   So ask yourself how large a amounts of *data* do you want to use? If it
is less than 3 Megs per chunk then the Arc will handle the job just fine,
without resorting to 8 Meg options. If you wish to handle more data than
this then consider buying an A540 where you can have up to 16 Megs easily.

   Hells teeth at least criticise the appropriate hardware for the job
rather than slagging off a low end A3000 for not being easily expandable
above 4 Meg... and adding insult to injury by trying to compare same low end
machine against hardware out of it's class.

    Philip

--
Philip R. Banks  Syntax: mail < banks_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz >            @@@@@/|
                                                                        @@@@/#|
                                                                        @@@/##|
There may be an om in moment, but there are very few folk in focus!     @@/---|
   ---Emmerson, Lake and Palmer.                                        @/    |
From: smb@cs.nott.ac.uk (Simon Burrows)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
Subject: The Acorn Pocketbook
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:03:43 GMT
Organization: Nottingham University

I have heard a lot of interesting discussion about the Pocketbook, but have
only had the chance to play with one for about 10 minutes. The following are
a few observations - please put me right if any are incorrect:

The Pocketbook retails for exactly the same price as the "equivalent"
Psion Series 3. One major attraction of the Pocketbook is that it can be
linked to the Archimedes - this link costs an extra #50, but is virtually
an essential purchase for any Pocketbook owner. Also, the Pocketbook does
not contain Diary software (unlike the Psion 3); this is surely one of
the most important pieces of software for such a device, but has to be
bought separately for an extra #30, as well as taking up a card slot.

Have I got these facts correct?


Simon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Burrows   smb@cs.nott.ac.uk  psyhsmb@unicorn.nott.ac.uk +44 533 712030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kelvin@thed.uk22.bull.com (Kelvin J. Hill)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spice 3A6
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:51:08 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

I for one would be interested. I've used the Unix version undex X11 and it
does work rather well. Sorry for posting this as a news article, but your
return mail address is not resolvable by this system.

Kelvin.

--
Kelvin J. Hill - BULL HN Information System Ltd, Hounslow, England, UK.
Internet - kelvin@thed.uk22.bull.com   | UUCP - kelvin@cix.compulink.co.uk
   ""      kelvin@kelvin.uk22.bull.com | AMPRnet - kelvin@g1emm.ampr.org
From: janjaap@blade (Janjaap van Velthooven)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
Subject: Re: PSPICE
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:54:14 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Hi there!

Read my answer in comp.sys.acorn.advocacy. BTW are you the same guy that wrote
ACL?? Congratulations on that! Nice program... (until we got Spice :-) )

Bye Bye.


	Erik van de Pol
	erikp@stack.urc.tue.nl


Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
From: goodwin@edieng.enet.dec.com (Pete Goodwin)
Subject: Re: Arcs and Graphics...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:42:42 GMT


In article <1992Sep6.171426.7460@odin.diku.dk>, seifert@diku.dk (Michael Seifert) writes...

>Gcc and Unix. And then 8 Megs ain't even enough. (gcc will probably never
>get converted as it takes up too much memory).

Fine, if you want UNIX. If you want a desktop, I guess you want X as well. I'll
stick to RISCOS - it's smaller, uses less memory, faster (because it's
lightweight) and I can get a C compiler for it. And it all works with less than
4Mbytes of RAM. Oh yeah, !Edit, !Draw and !Paint are in ROM in the latest
system.

Pete Goodwin
goodwin@system.enet.dec.com
From: sproven@cs.strath.ac.uk (Simon B Proven IE91)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer Shopper Magazine (UK)
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:56:18 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.

In article <1992Sep14.224150.2715@cs.nott.ac.uk> smb@cs.nott.ac.uk (Simon Burrows) writes:
>What do people think to the Archimedes column in the latest Computer
>Shopper magazine?
>
>In my opinion, it is the worst yet. The columnist continues to take every
>opportunity to (apparently) put Acorn down, and his facts are so incorrect!
>It looks as if he based his comments on the new machines on rumour rather
>than fact..

Yessir!

In fact, I've half a mind to write to the papers!

(which cartoon was that a catchline in folks?)

James Hope obviously doesn't understand the difference between an A4000 and
an A5000, coz he reckons the diff in price isn't worth it for the A5000.  He
doesn't realise that the A5000 has a 16 bit expansion bus while the A4000's
is 8 bit, he doesn't realise that the A5000 is more than twice as fast, he
doesn't realise that the A5000 can take 4 expansion cards while the A4000
can handle 1.

He reckons there'll be a proccessor upgrade for the A4000 - rubbish!

He forgets that the A5000 can take a floating point unit and a second IDE
drive.

Doesn't know much does he?

>Simon.

mad@bike
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
From: dconnors@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (David Connors)
Subject: Re: Arcs and Graphics...
Organization: Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 02:06:57 GMT

seifert@diku.dk (Michael Seifert) writes:

>Before buying an Archimedes ask yourself the question if you can live with
>4 megs of memory. Any mem above 4 meg is expensive enough to blow any
>budget off its feet. Also anything above 8 megs is virtually impossible.

>So the machine is kind of outdated. Who dares say 'I can only put 8 megs
>in my 32 bit computer???'

It's all relative, Michael. I only have 3 megs of ram in my Amiga 500,
but the Amigas operating system is very memory efficient so I never run
out. I'm not saying that you only need 3 megs of course, a friend of mine
has an AMiga 3000 with 18 megs of ram and he's always running out because
he is heavily into graphics. It's not uncommon for a ray tracer to demand
a minimum of 3 or 4 megs to work properly.

At this stage I'm going to sit back and wait for this pasedena show that
Commodore is having to see what new stuff they are releasing. Also, I 
am VERY keenly looking towards this power PC project. I've been speaking to
some of the lecturers here at Griffith who have been following the 
story and Apple claims that it's "Pink" operating system will be able to
run OS/2, Mac, Windows, MS-Dos and UNIX (with Xwindows) software all at once.

They are hoping to have the machine up to 700 MFlops by 1996 or something.
THough that would be the very high end gear costing many tens of thousands
of dollars. THe main reason why I am looking towards the PowerPC is because
it promises to be everything the AMiga was back in 1985 - ie: a radical
improvement in tech. Still, Apple and IBM are mostly full of shit, after
all, OS2/2.0 on my friends 386 33Mhz DX with 4 megs of ram takes about 4
seconds to open a window and IBM claim that's FAST!!! *sigh*

Now, when are cray going to bring out a 500 dollar notebook. ;-)



   Dave Connors - D.Connors@sct.gu.edu.au     Griffith University, Australia
 - -- ---=-==-=================================================-==--=--- -- -
   " I suppose you think you're doing pretty well eh? Just remember it was
     the hare that got off to a quick start, but the tortise learned ninja
                   fighting and started his own feature film. "
                   - Russell, the host of CDTV Trivial Pursuit
 - -- ---=-==-=================================================-==--=--- -- -
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
From: cbuckley@unix1.tcd.ie (Colm Buckley)
Subject: Re: Arcs and Graphics...
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 13:04:55 GMT

> ==  gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)

>> == seifert@diku.dk (Michael Seifert)

>>So the machine is kind of outdated. Who dares say 'I can only put 8 megs
>>in my 32 bit computer???'

>Everyone with Unix on a 386 is stuck with an upper limit of 16Mb; the
>hardware doesn't easily address anything higher, so all these people
>with their 64Mb 386 machines are bullshitting.

Only ISA (AT-compatible) machines have this 16Mb limit. EISA and MCA
machines have a much higher limit; it's at least 64Mb (I've seen and used a
number of machines with 64Mb), and may be higher.

Check your facts before you start accusing people of bullshitting.

-- 
Colm.
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Colm Buckley                        | "My program doesn't work."       |
| Computer Science,                   | "You forgot the semicolon."      |
| Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland  | "But..."                         |
|                                     | "Line 376. Check."               |
| cbuckley@unix1.tcd.ie               | "But..."                         |
| CBUCKLEY@vax1.tcd.ie                | "Trust me."                      |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
From: D.S.Walker@bradford.ac.uk (Simeon Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Acorn Pocketbook
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:32:59 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 91909178@occam

In article <1992Sep10.090046.9975@bnr.co.uk> ajdh@bnr.co.uk (Andrew J D Hurley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.150343.321@cs.nott.ac.uk> smb@cs.nott.ac.uk (Simon Burrows) writes:
>>The Pocketbook retails for exactly the same price as the "equivalent"
>>Psion Series 3. One major attraction of the Pocketbook is that it can be
>>linked to the Archimedes - this link costs an extra #50, but is virtually
>>an essential purchase for any Pocketbook owner. Also, the Pocketbook does
>
>
>My conclusion was that I would be better off with a normal Psion 3 if I
>could get the comms link to my A3000, it's not as though I want

A friend of mine has a Series 3 (very nice) and we just couldn't get the
serial link to work with the Arc. It worked with a PC straight out of the
box. We tried all kinds of serial cable configurations.
   Does anyone know if the Pocketbook<->Arc link will work with a real
Series 3 ?

>I shall be waiting for the Newton, though I doubt if I'll be able
>to afford one :-(
Hmm, me too...


-- 
Sim. ----------------------------------------------------------- Simeon Walker,
----------------------------------------- Department of Electrical Engineering,
D.S.Walker@bradford.ac.uk -------------------- University of Bradford, England.