From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: WHO, *ME*?!Re: DAN IS GETTING UPSET! (was Re: SKIP'S POINTS ARE *SILLY*! ;)Re: Oh my God! Help my friend not buy an IBM!)
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:43:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.162915.26679@ra.msstate.edu> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.035827.27941@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.005021.13155@ra.msstate.edu> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls) writes:
>>>But Dan, do you really think that someone such as myself could just leave
>>>this alone and not twist the argument around?  :-)  Hey, this is .advocacy
>>>and nothing can be assumed, reasonable or otherwise.  :-)
>>
>>Naw....;)
>
>For those of you not from the South, "Naw" is what folks like Dan and I sound
>like when we say "No".  :-)
>
>>So you'd prefer the Amiga to sell pathetically with KOOL D00Ds using them
>>rather than have them sell well (!) with Boring People running productivity
>>software on them?  It is the PC's huge market dominance that enables those
>>'Incredibly Boring Machines' to have fantastic non-business software for it.
>>There is, to my knowledge, NO Amiga fighter simulation comparable to 
>>Falcon3.0. 
>
>How well does Falcon 3.0 run on a monochrome XT or CGA/EGA 286?  I have an
>older version of Falcon for the Amiga that runs great on both my A3000 and
>on my old A1000.  The problem is that I really suck at most games and only
>drag them out to show the machine off.  Anyway, like everyone says, if you
>want a game machine, get a Clone.  :-)

It doesn't run on an XT.  It requires a 286, just like FalconAT for Clones
(basically equivalent to the Amiga's and Atarti's Falcon).  However,
and fast 386(S/D)X is highly recommended.

Personally, I play it on a 386/33 with lotsa RAM and a Soundblaster.

Not running new games/sims on old platforms is the price for progress, Skip.

>>I know of nothing for the Amiga like Ultima Underworld.  Undoubtedly, some 
>>higher end Amigas could *do* these two 'games', but due to the 'KOOL D00Ds 
>>computing in obscurity' attitude you and Microsoft/Lotus/etc take you cannot
>>get them! (Falcon3.0, UU)
>
>You are arguing with the wrong person about games.  I seem to have dulled
>my reflexes from either getting old or drinking too much beer and haven't 
>found and action game that I could play in quite some time.  I'd rather 
>have a few of the types of games that I had on my Apple ][, at least I
>could play those.  :-)

Well, Ulitima Underworld isn't really very super-fast paced, really.

There are some heated times, tho'!  Sort like in DM - there is lotsa 
walking around, with moments of terror when you are backed up against
a wall... B-)

>>>Well, they say that ignorance is bliss.  :-)  Seriously, check out Scala MM,
>>>AmigaVision, CanDo, and others, there is plenty of software available now
>>>and more on the way.  As for CDTV, I never said that I thought much of it,
>>>did I?  In fact, I don't see it doing well unless Commodore beefs it up 
>>>with the AGA chipset and some sort of FMV.
>>
>>Hmm.  That is my PC-ness showing through.  To most people, Multimedia=CDROM.
>>I do  not know of ANY CDROM multimedia software for the Amiga.
>
>There are plenty of CDTV titles.  :-)  

You make this too easy for me, Skip.

NOW my question is: is 'Multimedia' is _so_ *new*, why in there hell haven't
I heard of any titles?  

Could you give more than one example?

Also, depsite the fact that you dislike the DCTV, do you know how it is
supposed to be posititioned wrt PCs vs. Game Console CDs?  Which is it?
Are the titles of which you speak (ohh, that's real Southern grammar for
you...) games only?

>>Personally, I do not see them inherit benefits of this so called 'Multimedia'
>>standard.  I think it has been pretty hyped up.  I would think of it more
>>as 'oohh, a CDROM with an interactive encyclopedia with digitized sound samples'.
>
>Most folks probably won't benefit from "MultiMedia" for some time, but when
>companies like Apple and IBM hype it up, the lemmings will follow.  If you
>listen to Apple, QuickTime is going to change the world.  But after you see
>how positively silly the jerky little animations are you realize that it is
>nothing more than marketing hype.

I only saw QT once on a Computer Chronicles.  It looked neat - but I really
didn't see as super duper, either.  I regarded it along the lines
on sound modules - something you'll wanna download to watch an listen to - 
not make into a new genre of media.

>>In other words, Mutlimedia, IMNSHO != good presentation software.  This show
>>how C= is outta touch with what 'multimedia' is to most people.  When they 
>>know enough about multimedia to do "multimedia things", they won't consider 
>>an Amiga.  MAYBE if it used a CD a lot....otherwise I just see them going and
>>getting a PC.
>
>Hell, real "MultiMedia" should involve _multiple_ _media_, not just computer
>media.  No stock computer is really multimedia capable, even Amigas and the
>silly MPC machines.  When a computer can handle full-motion video in, CD 
>quality audio in, real-time 3D graphics genlocked on top of the video and 
>output to either NTSC/PAL or RGBA, full audio mixing and output, etc. with
>no slowdown and complete seamlessness, it may be a "MultiMedia" computer.
>The current crop of Amigas, Clones, Macs, MPCs, CDTVs, CD-Is, and that stupid
>Tandy thing are not really capable of true "MultiMedia".

Skip, all I wa saying was that a CD was very important in making a
'Multimedia' computer what it is.  Otherwise it is just a really
good presentation computer.

Sigh - this multimedia crap is too goofy, let us drop it. 

>>>If you are referring to those VideoBlasters and other things, get a clue.
>>>The quality on those things is terrible and the software is a hack at best.
>>
>>Actually, Skip, I have an abundance of 'clues'.  Would you like one of mine?
>>You are sorely lacking....
>>
>>(wow, that was a *good* shot! ;)  )
>
>It might have been if I were as thin-skinned as some of the wimps who frequent
>this group, but I'm not.  :-)
>

Oh, that is right - you drive a truck too, eh?

>>thing costs more.  I don't think they have the TV as a the desktop background,
>>but can have it fullscreen and in a windows.  The window (in Windows and OS/2)
>>isn't resizeable...darn. ;)  And yes, the display does look a bit frotched in
>>the windowed display, but that's what you expect resizing the picture down to 
>>320X200 or somesuch teeny size.
>
>Actually, I wouldn't mind having one of these things on my Amiga.  It would
>sure make it easier to catch the Rush Limbaugh show when I'm here working 
>late.  :-)

Yeah, I never catch him because I'm off computing or doing homework, and
before I know it it is already 11:25 (he comes on at 11:00_... drat.

>>>That's the problem, the SBPro is something of a standard and all software
>>>will have to support it.  It sucks and the Developer's Kit sucks even more.
>>
>>The only programming I do is in FORTRAN - and that is because THEY MAKE ME.
>
>Oh, now we know why you are so crazy.  :-)

Heh heh.

Oh yeah?!  OH YEAH?!  Well - your liking Country music crap would
explain a few things, too. :-)


>>I really don't think programming is so hot, and do not give a darn how lousy
>>the SBDK is - just as long as it is profitable for developers to use it anyway
>>and give me games with cool sound <insert Falcon3.0's 'Copy waypoint bypass' 
>>and 'I've gone Winchester'.
>
>That's the problem, the darn thing is such a piece of junk that a lot of 
>time is wasted fighting it.  It must have been coded by an EE or somesuch
>as the style and naming conventions are really pathetic.  :-)

I don't care.  Like I said - if it is profitable  - they'll do it.

>>>Well, the A400 is not out yet, but I'd bet that it will be cheaper than the
>>>486.  :-)
>>
>>A400?  What is that?  Ohh!  oh!! Ooops,  I hate making typos! :-)
> 
>Sorry, I know it is bad netiquette (or whatever that bastardized word is)
>to correct spelling, but it makes for good rumor fodder.  :-)

Is there a RUMORMONGER around?

>>>Seriously, RAM suddenly became an issue when the (...) decided to place a
>>>tariff on the chips a couple of weeks ago.  
>
>What, no comment about the (...) who are screwing the public?  :-)

Eh?

>>>68EC020 @ 14.32MHz, 4x bandwith of A3000, same video specs as A4000,
>>>rumored price less than $1000.
>>
>>By the Way, if it only cost $10 or so more to use a ful 68020 WITH MMU...
>>why not?  I don't see why you ought to cripple yourself now when in the future
>>you might want VM.  But the big question remains....DOES IT COME WITH A HARD
>>DRIVE AND MONITOR for <$1000?!
>
>Well, even the real 020 doesn't have an MMU and the cost is important.  A
>$10 part might jack the retail price up an extra $30 or so.  As for VM, if
>Windows and the Mac are any indication of PC-type VM, the Amiga doesn't
>need it.

Well, WHAT DOES the 'EC' designation mean?  That it comes from Europe?? ;)

I thought the EC variants of the 68020 and 68030 were MMU-less.

>The prices are all still rumors, but one source says that the A1200 with
>2M Chip and a floppy will be $599 and with a 40M HD will be $799.  Add a
>cheap SVGA monitor and it would all be less than $1000.

Are they released yet?

>>Also, azre you _sure_ it isn't 14.33 ot 14.31 Mhz that the 68EC020 runs
>>at? :-)
>
>Actually, I'm not sure at all.  I've seen so many different numbers for the
>MHz of the Amiga that I now think it must be variable.  :-)

I was just teasing.  Sorta like saying the 8088 ran at 4.77 Mhz.  Heh - 
like a hundreth of a megahertz MATTERED.

>>>Virtual Reality apps, morphing packages out the yin-yang, etc.
>>
>>These aren't available for PCs?  I have seem VR apps.  And aren't we being a 
>>bit selective here in what applications types we choose?  Gahh, what?! no
>>cutting edge word processors with Unlimited Undo?! :-)
>
>Hey, you said "advocate to me", not "tell me the truth".  :-)
>
>As for word processors, who cares?  I use emacs for everything.  :-)

Oh, GOD, you ARE FUCKED!  Man, you're one of those EMACS WEENIES, right?
The kind who like and die by a text editor that is too big for its 
britches?

Man, the first (and second and third) times I EVER tried EMACS, 
I was *totally* confused.  I SEE NO FREAKIN' *META* KEY ANYWHERE!!!

And all three time I had to *kill* the damned process to quit it.
Ugh.


>>
>>Skip, are you aware of the datarates in the EISA? MCA? LOCALBUS?  Man, 
>>Localbus is wicked fast.  And one thing your A4000 cannot do out of the box: 
>
>Duh, the Amiga has had "localbus" video all along.  Leave it to the Clone
>makers to jump on the bandwagon and then pretend like they are the leaders.
>

Really?  Who'da thunk.

>more elegant than the EISA kludge and faster than the MCA that IBM uses in
>their PS/2s.  If Dave Haynie is reading this, he'll set you straight.  :-)
>

Would you be so kind as to tell me HOW much faster?  Really, MCA and EISA
are pretty fast - like ~39meg/s

>
>Skip Sauls, Amiga Advocate & PC Basher and GOOFBALL EXTRAORDINAIRE!
>skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu
-- 
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