HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abel@ocf.berkeley.edu (Abel Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: C= Engineers--Now that the wraps are off . . .
Date: 14 Dec 1992 10:35:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

Now that the A1200 and A4000 have been introduced, I'm wondering if
you could let us in on the history of these new computers.  I've got
loads of questions and observations (tell me if I'm completely
off-base).

What were the project names and who worked on them?

What were the original specs and how and why are they different from
now?  I'm wondering how well the rumors over the years tracked with
what was going on.  Some of the design was probably concurrent with
the development of ECS which may have led to high expectations for
ECS.  I've heard rumors that the A4000 was not <gasp> the computer the
engineers wanted to build.

When did these projects start?  Where were they designed?  Was the
A1200 designed after the A4000 was done or was it done on a parallel
track or what?

Why does the A4000 look so much like a PC?  Is it a standard PC-case
(i.e. would a PC motherboard fit in there)?  If so, that would explain
a bit (in terms of cost reductions/mass production, etc.).  Is it at
all possible that the case (at least the face-plate) would be
redesigned in the future?

Anyhow, that should keep you guys occupied.  To all the C= people on
the net, thanks for providing authoritative answers to all the
misinformation spewed about on c.s.a.*.  It's very much appreciated.

Merry Christmas!
==E =D--Abe  (abel@ocf.berkeley.edu)
-- 
==E =D--Abe  (abel@ocf.berkeley.edu)
From: Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP (Paula Lieberman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: World of Commodore Toronto
Distribution: world
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:51:00 EDT
Organization: Amiga Colony BBS

re article by Skip Sauls <1992Dec11.185715.17127@ramsstate.edu> -- Cary
Wasserman said that when he attempted to import a particular image that was
something like 1100 X 800 into ADPro, it told him he couldn't because he
needed 20 MB of RAM and his machine doesn't have that much RAM.


-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.graphics
From: cmd1@wuecl.wustl.edu (Chris Dunphy)
Subject: Re: World of Commodore Toronto
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:34:30 GMT

In article <Bz3Kx9.GC9@news.udel.edu> don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes:
>     Wrong.  3.0 also adds Datatypes.library, the directory caching FFS,
>and numerous other improvements internally (like support for double-buffering
>in Intuition, etc).  It's far from an AGA version of 2.1... it's a rather
>big upgrade all the way around.  Why CBM is even bothering with 2.1 is a 
>bit of a mystery to me.

   Simple, 3.0 requires a new ROM.  All the people who just spent $$$$
for new 2.04 roms might want to upgrade (2.1) without buying new ROMS.
I bet that when 3.1 is out next Spring it (and the ROMS) will be
made generally availible.  This way C= also has a chanve to work
out the last few bugs from 3.0 before it goes into genral use
everywhere.

(**************************************************************)
(*    Chris Dunphy         |     Amiga 4000 & Amiga 1000      *)        
(* cmd1@wuecl.wustl.edu    | I've got the first, and I've got *)
(*         or              | the best.  Now all I need is a   *)
(* cmd1@cec2.wustl.edu     | toaster to call my own....  :)   *)
(**************************************************************)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran)
Subject: Re: 1200 questions :)
Organization: Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:58:32 GMT

In article <1gfodoINNjj5@mozz.unh.edu> ggg@kepler.unh.edu (Gregory G Greene)
writes:

>'>In Canada, dealers are bundling the A1200, 40 MB drive and 1960 multisync
>'>for $1300 (~$1000 U.S.). Some are offering an 80 MB drive for an additional
>'>$79.

>	Can I ask where in the US you are getting this $1000 price?  The 2
>   Amiga dealers around here are quoting $1200-$1300 for the same setup.

The $1000 U.S. price is actually based on the current exchange rate,
giving the equivalent in U.S. funds. Canadian pricing on computer systems
and components is currently cheaper, especially with the recent devaluation
of the CDN dollar.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Dan flipped through an AmigaWorld, and:
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:37:08 GMT

In article <2089@vall.dsv.su.se> matt-dah@dsv.su.se (Mattias Dahlberg) writes:
>Stephenson Daniel A (das9674@usl.edu) wrote:
>
>: Gosh, now if only I knew someone with WB2 I could actually *use*.
>: The Amiga1000 with WB1.3 should be here in a few days...I don't
>: plan to comment so much on the GUI as I will the great multitasking
>: everyone talks about.  I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
>
>Geez, why are you here if you haven't used any of the stuff yet?

Oh, you are so right.  Maybe I should not  try out that Amiga1000 and leave
this group so you Amigans cannot advocate your computer line to me
anymore.  
>
>BTW, an Amiga 1000 with WB1.3? That computer is from 1985, I will
>gladly try a PC from 1985 and compare it with my Amiga 3000.

You guys are really hard up for a fight, aren't you?  You you prefer to 
donate you Amiga3000 to me for a while, in that case???  Good grief.
I don't have access to anything but that Amiga1000, and I am going to
try it out some, and I don't give a hoot how old it is.  
>=  Mattias  =  matt-dah@dsv.su.se  =  I love it.        =
--
Dan Stephenson                                                das9674@usl.edu  
"There once was a Lady from Hyde/who ate some bad apples and died/but while
we lamented/the apples fermented/making cider inside her inside!" 
                        -Member of the Court, Texas Renaissance Festival
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:08:44 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dans uploaded OS/2 Screens SUCK!
 <92353.040832MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> <BzH58y.313@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>

In article <BzH58y.313@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>,
papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) says:

>For what it's worth, Windows programs seldom support OS/2 metafile
>format, because it usually isn't worth their while.  So OS/2 programs
>convert.  That's the problem that comes with having an advanced system.

Yes, we Amiga owners have to deal with those hassles all the time...

(I'm sorry. I had to say it. It was too easy.)

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs Win NT (was: 4 Colour Interfaces : -( )
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:24:46 GMT

>  NT does not have a microkernel; at least not in the research computer 
>science sense of the word.  For example, all of the file handling etc 
>takes place in the deep internals of the kernel, unlike microkernels like 
>Mach.
>  NT does have a hardware abstraction layer, but that's not much more 
>than an abstraction of what Unix has had for fifteen years.

1.I know people that have seen the NT source code and said it is
microkernel.

2.NT can not have file handling in the microkernel...it supports
different file systems!  (just like OS/2)

3.2 of the programmers working on the NT project CAME from Mach.
Anything that wasn't done like Mach was done differently for a REASON.
From: monster@mbear.apana.org.au (Martin Ozolins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dan flipped through an AmigaWorld, and:
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn-beta 1.16g (10.12.92) by Michael B. Smith & Mike Schwartz
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:26:05 PST
Organization: Bears Incorporated

In article <1992Dec13.182224.13346@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
> Ha! Ha! (laughs audibly)  I *love* throwing things like that in.  Just 
> keeps you guys up-to-date on those great games like Ultima Underworld-by
> FAR the best RPG *ever*, and Falcon 3.0 -perhaps the best fighter sim
> on *any* platform.  Also, it serves to point out that bare MSDOS machines -
> the OS that you AMigans bash to hell and back - is what they run 'on'. 
> I'll do it more now and again to keep you guys from getting too cocky. :)

Must be boring games since they must all look the same.
Yep, ALL applications on Windows look the same ( your inference not mine )

-- 

Martin Ozolins :Internet   monster@mbear.apana.org.au
Victoria       :FIDO       3:633/359.6
Australia      :AMIGANET   41:300/359.6
               :TRINET     42:8699/8.6
From: TomK@cup.portal.com (Tom R Krotchko)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dans uploaded OS/2 Screens SUCK!
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 10:15:16 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <92353.040832MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> <71992@cup.portal.com>
  <BzIAKy.Jpq@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>

>>Mostly annoying, because its wrong on both counts. IFF isn't
>>proprietary, and is is most emphatically not geared to any platform.
>>IFF is a pretty neat standard, since it is so extensible.
>
>Who invented IFF?

Electronic Arts.

>Unless it is an ansi or iso standard it falls under
>the heading "proprietary." Of course there are levels of proprietary.
>GIF is proprietary, and BMP too, but because of their ubiquity they are
>less proprietary then IFF which isn't as popular.

Dance, dance, dance. Its gratifying to know there is now a sliding
scale of "proprietary". I'd like to just keep a few things straight.
Which is more proprietary:

(1) Windows .BMP or OS/2 .BMP

(2) MCA bus or EISA bus

(3) Coca Cola or RC Cola (careful, this is a tough one, because it
probably depends on the market penetration in an individual city).

Also, if you could tell me how the "ubiquity" factor affects the
"proprietary" factor, I can avoid such faux pas as saying "IFF is
not proprietary".

Thanks.

TomK@cup.portal.com
Tom Krotchko
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:34:20 GMT
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana

In article <12.UUL1.3#25216@gcomm.com> demosys@gcomm.com (Galacticomm's Demo System) writes:
>
>M{>#4 You Amigans cannot run MSDOS at all, and threfore cannot run
>M{>such incredible games such as Ultima Underworld and Falcon 3.0.  So there.
>
>Makes me want to go throw myself in front of a bus, I'm so heart-broken.

I am not surprised.

>Christopher L. Kotacka         //  chrisk@gcomm.com
>>>Email should include the following on
>>>the first line of message text>>   MBBS: Arch
--
Dan Stephenson                                         das9674@usl.edu  
"Yes Dan, I have heard of Ultima Underworld.  From my point of view it
 appears to be a rather large stick which you seem to be using to beat
 everbody in this group with." -Mark Steyn, comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: papresco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: A4000 or NOT 
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:56:35 GMT

In article <4YR6s*-c0@motship.hacktic.nl> pvdh@motship.hacktic.nl writes:
>>True.  PCs have always had the best "productivity" software, and more recently
>
>I would prefer to say PC's have the most used productivity software. There
>are quite a few titles available  for the amiga which would be just as good
> for the average PC user.

The two statments don't contradict.

Some Amiga stuff is "good enough."  And some people like to have "the
best." regardless of what might be "good enough."

Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:31057 comp.sys.amiga.misc:18388 comp.sys.amiga.graphics:8001
From: cfury@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Chris Fury)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.graphics
Subject: Re: World of Commodore Toronto
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:45:20 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

bn@mndcrme.uoknor.edu (Bo Najdrovsky) writes:

>Thomas VanNess Leavitt (leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu) wrote:
>:			  aren't we getting a little impatient here?  how
>: long has 3.0 been out?  a couple of months?  geez, half of us are still
>: operating on 1.3!!!

>I'm sorry, but that's that half's fault. I'm running 2.1 on my 3000. Those
>who don't upgrade are going to find increasingly smaller software base
>compatible with their systems. (except for games that usually run in
>anything, since they throw any OS that is hanging around out the window)

>3.0 has nothing to do with the general improvement of the OS. It's a
>release for support of the AGA chipset. 3.1 will be important, because
>it will include networking (TCP/IP) and DSP support. 4.0 is when we really
>take off.  I'm also silently hoping that by 4.0 the OS has some sort of
>memory protection on the MMU equiped processors, but I'm not getting my
>hopes up.

REALLY!?!? TCP/IP? YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!  Way to go commodore!!!  Let's
keep it up! 
(... and get that memory protection in.... :)

>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  Bo Najdrovsky  bn@mndcrme.uoknor.edu bn@okcforum.uoknor.edu|    //	  |
>|							      |   //	  |
>|      "I remember now, I remember how it started..."         | \X/ AMIGA |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Christopher B. Fury        | "...reality was once a primative method of crowd  
cfury@csugrad.cs.vt.edu    |  control that got out of hand" - Jane Wagner
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:31573 comp.sys.amiga.hardware:21718
From: ahansfor@bigwpi.wpi.edu (Andrew L. Hansford)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Power-up for AGA Machines! rumour.
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:06:16
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<AHANSFOR.92Dec17003102@bigwpi.wpi.edu>
	<1992Dec17.145831.13673@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: ccb8m@onyx.cs.Virginia.EDU's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:58:31 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:58:31 GMT, ccb8m@onyx.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy) said:

>040 a CISC is the instruction set. (and a few conventions we attribute
>to each but that could easily be incorporated on others). 
>
>RISC machines can have microcode (alpha for example in at least the

ccb8m> In the strictest sense pure RISC doesn't have microcode.  Microcode 
ccb8m> is a CISC complexity reduction feature.  Check out Patterson and
ccb8m> Hennessey or Colwell, et-al which describes the original RISCI built
ccb8m> at Berkely.

ccb8m> Six features which = pure RISC:

ccb8m>    1) Single Cycle Operation.
ccb8m>    2) Load/Store Design.
ccb8m>    3) Hardwired Control. (provides fastest possible single-cycle operation)
ccb8m>    4) Relatively few instructions and addressing modes.
ccb8m>    5) Fixed instruction format.
ccb8m>    6) More compile time effort. (Pipeline scheduling, etc)

ccb8m> If a "RISC" machine has microcode it is questionable whether it is RISC or
ccb8m> CISC.  If it is truly RISC, hardwired logic isn't more complex than micro-
ccb8m> code.

ccb8m> Charles C. Bundy IV
ccb8m> ccb8m@virginia.edu

Ah yes,  they might have claimed that at the time, but you will see
the differences between RISC and CISC get smaller.  I would definitely
call the Alpha a RISC machine even with its PALcode, because of its
insrtuction set and load/store architecture.

-- Andrew Hansford
   ahansfor@wpi.wpi.edu


Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Dan flipped through an AmigaWorld, and:
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:30:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.041029.9962@sol.cs.wmich.edu> 22black@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Martin Black) writes:
>tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran) writes:
>
[Dan says the WB2.0 looks *awful*]

>>Let's be fair: what screen shot are you referring to? Many of the images are
>>either software which does not take advantage of 2.0 (1.3 hold-outs),
>>aren't style-guide compliant, or are taken from low-resolution displays.
>
>>In fact, in the January issue, you'd have a hard time coming up with anything
>>that didn't fit into the above categories. Unfortunately, most of us feel
>>the same way you do.
>
>Exactly!  There is not even one wb 2.0 shot in the entire january 93 issue
>of amigaworld.  So what in the world are you talking about?
>
>But then again we don't have to worry about the workbench too much.
>Becuase we have the apps open their private screens.  
>Myself I really don't really interact on the wb more than to open shells
>and start apps.  All else works in the csh shell and private screens.

Wow, this sort of comment REALLY points out some Amiga inadequecies:

1) Apps have private screens.  This shoots to hell an enforcement of
commonality between apps.  What a wild blend of software that designs its
own interface.  Woo woo.

2) It seems beyond me that Amigaworld, *AMIGA*World, wouldn't have shots of the
Workbench.  Think about it.  What a farce that the Amiga GUI is so irrelevant,
being some kind of program loader, that it isn't touted.  Sheesh.  You can't
do that with Windows or OS/2.  The basic structure of windows are all the same.
You can't help but see the basic of Windows/OS/2 by looking at screen shots of
Windows or OS/2 screen shots.

Hopefully, HOPEFULLY, hires and HI color workbenchs are worth using.  And some
Amigans tout the BLAZING SPEED of the WB?!  Good grief! I sure would hope so,
to lauch a program to be able to stop looking at it.
>Martin
>


-- 
Dan Stephenson                                                das9674@usl.edu  
"There once was a Lady from Hyde/who ate some bad apples and died/but while
we lamented/the apples fermented/making cider inside her inside!" 
                        -Member of the Court, Texas Renaissance Festival  
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: Dans uploaded OS/2 Screens SUCK!
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:13:40 GMT

papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>Who invented IFF?

Wasn't it Electronic Arts?

-- Gerald
From: aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: NEED STORY ON HOW JACK TRAMIEL MISSED AMIGA
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:53:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu




I need the story on how Jack Tramiel kept lowering how much he
was willing to pay for Amiga until finally Commodore stepped in and
offered a decent price.

Please send it to me by a reply or aa399@cleveland.freenet.edu

I know it is out there.

Thanks.

Len

--
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dan flipped through an AmigaWorld, and:
Date: 13 Dec 92 07:26:48 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:

>1) I like the looks of the Amiga1200 and the Amiga600! Really!  The A1200
>looks like a 'matured' A500, IMO.  The 600 look fine, too.  I like the tilted-
>up look to them

>2) Wow, that WB 2.0 looks AWFUL.  Granted, I haven't actually used it, but
>from the screen shot, it looks SO primitive!  I guess it is the 4 colors only
>that does it.  Really, it hardly looks any better than the mouse-interface 
>for MSDOS 5.0's EDIT.COM.  Or QBasic. You get the picture.  Really, you guys
>may claim Windows and OS/2 looks to flashy/blocky/clumsy, but WB2.0 looks
>primitive as hell!

Please stop by my dorm room some time and I'll show you just how "primitive"
WB2 is... ...it looks very nice, actually.  I had a Mac pal over in my room
the other night, and when she got a look at my WB screen the first thing she
said was "Pretty!"  Compared to Windows (gaudy) and the Mac (is it 2d or 3d?),
it's sleek and clean.  Compared to Motif, it needs a little work, but hey...

>Dan Stephenson                                                 das9674@usl.edu  
>"There once was a Lady from Hyde/who ate some bad apples and died/but while we
>lamented/the apples fermented/making cider inside her inside!" 
>                        -Member of the Court, Texas Renaissance Festival  
-- 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Jake Rose               :: Two men look out through the same bars.
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu ::                     One sees mud, and one the stars.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: m92mmy@tdb.uu.se (Mattias Myrberg)
Subject: Re: What is BLAZEMONGER ?
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:32:27 GMT

In article 34283 Travis Carter writes:

>  [ extremely long and wrong explaination of BLAZEMONGER deleted... ]

>  Ok, Ok, we ALL know that BLAZEMONGER is nothing more than a
> solar powered flashlight simulation with support for the PA chipset...

Is that "solar powered flashlight"-simulation or solar powered "flashlight-simulation" ?

So what's the PA-chipset ?

Why do I bother about this joke ?

/Mattias

_______
Mattias Myrberg

m92mmy@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se