HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fheitkamp@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga 4000 but NO AUDIO
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:07:21 GMT
 <1992Sep27.105649.12609@lth.se> <1992Sep27.204055.17188@news.iastate.edu>
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Sep27.204055.17188@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett) writes:
> In article <1992Sep27.105649.12609@lth.se> e91sg@efd.lth.se (Stefan Gimeson) writes:
>>All my sources at C= sweden told me so, and they have not lied to me 
>>yet, so if we don't get DSP & 16 bit sound by christmas, I'll gladly
>>eat a box full off floppies...(yum,yum!) :-)
> 
>    Will we be getting 16-bit sound in *STANDARD HARDWARE* by this Christmas?
> Or by Christmas of 1994, for that matter?
> 
	While 16 bit sound would be nice, isn't there a lot of overhead with
	it.  I think an uncompressed sound file would be about 700k/sec if
	my math isn't way off.

>>/Stefan
>>
>>===============================================================================
>>Stefan Gimeson                (e91sg@efd.lth.se)                              *
>>Tunavagen 39 B660                                                             *
>>S-223 63 Lund         *       (Boing,Boom,Tsack!)     (Words like violece)    *
>>                    U*MEN     (                 )     (breaks the silence)    *
>>Sweden                *        (  -KRAFTWERK-  )       (                )     *
>>Phone (0)46-141386   * *        (             )         (     -D.M-    )      *
>>=================================(           )===========(            )========
>>Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?*
>>exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT     *
>>^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d  *
>>man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
Fred Heitkamp,  ** Not an organization.  My opinions only **

>>                                                                              *
>>===============================================================================
>>
> 
> ---
> | Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
> -----------------------------------------------------
> COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACH WANTED.  Absolutely *NO* qualifications required
> (we'll take *ANYBODY*).  Contact the ISU athletic office for details.
From: Chris_Millar@lppl.mi.org (Chris Millar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: REAL FALCON 030 SPECS
Distribution: world
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:12:16 EST
Organization: Les's Place BBS

Ok, I've had it up to here with all of the slandering the Falcon has taken
because of it's shared processor/video bus.  I was arguing from the
viewpoint that you already knew how the ST's architecture worked, but I was
mistaken, SO, here is why everything is just fine with thre shared bus.
The ST uses 16Mhz memory - utilizing 8Mhz for the processor, and 8Mhz for
the video - this worked out great in the old ST's, and the processor worked
at full capacity......So, the TT came along, and it just so happened that
the bandwidth for the new TT modes far exceeded the capabilites of the ST's
way of handling video, even when using 32Mhz memory - it cuts such huge
chunks outm of processor time it is unbelievable - SO, Atari reworked the
way it worked for the TT - using 32 bit memory (as in the Falcon - NOT
Burst mode) the memory is mapped in such a way that there is a certain "bit
feedback" per cycle - 8 bits back in an 8 bit computer, 16 for the ST, 32
for the TT, SO, the Atari engineers reworked the video fetching system so
that it grabs 64 bits of info per cycle - MUCH, MUCH faster - it does it by
way of a special "latching" system which I'd rather not go into great
detail with right now.
Now, the TT supports all ST resolutions plus 640x480 16 colors, 320x480 256
colors, and 1280x960 monochrome - the Falcon's modes are much larger memory
wise, but by using the 16Mhz COMBEL and a 64 bit video fetch, it doesn't
cut into processor time at all - oh, yes, TOS 4.0 works 'em in parallel.  
Finally, some of you bonheads are claiming that since processor time is cut
in half (NOT), or since video speed is so slow (NOT), that the Falcon is
unusable - oh, ok.......If that were the case, then how was the Falcon able
to perform the following feat at the Boston Computer Society Meeting:
3 1/2 minutes of digitized 640x400, interlaced, 65,536 color video, showing
at 24 frames per second, WHILE playing back 3 1/2 minutes of 16 bit, 50kHz,
digitally sampled audio.......took up 90 meg of hard disk space and running
on a 14 meg machine - 4 meg if compressed.........I couldn't if you were
right - fortunately, you are NOT.........

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: u894776@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull)
Subject: Re: Low End AGA Machine
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:56:05 GMT

eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story) writes:

>$3000/2 = $1500 ..egad!  Too damn much!.. especially for a '20
>machine.  C= better not, or the AGA line won't survive PAST christmas.

Hmm if its more than about $1200AU for an AGA+030+40megHD, then CBM
might as well forget it in Australia.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: boberg@lysator.liu.se (Stefan Boberg)
Subject: Re: A4000 at WOC
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 10:11:37 GMT

glens@natinst.com (Glen Sescila) writes:


>u894776@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull) writes:

>>The bit about filling polygons is a downright lie - neither the amigas
>>nor the ataris blitters can draw filled polygons [in the strictest sense]
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>But the amigas blitter can do template filling.

>	I am a registerd Atari developer and have Atari's docs on the
>blitter.  If you have an STe and want, I can send you an example program
>(executable only, source might violate my NDA) that uses the blitter to
>draw filled polygons.  Where did you get the info that it can't do
>polygons?

  He means that you don't simply feed the blitter a number of coordinates
and then say `draw this polygon'. You have to draw the lines (using single-
point/scanline mode) first and then call upon the blitter to fill this
template.

>"Now You're Playing With Power Without The Price!"  Glen Sescila   |||
>exact opposites.	InterNet: glens@natinst.com
--
Stefan Boberg - AP & EE student at Linkoping Institute of Technology, Sweden
 Author of LhA, ArjA and LhArcA. Co-author of Alien Breed, Project X ...
  EMail: boberg@lysator.liu.se, lha@augs.se           FIDO: 2:204/404.7
    UUCP:  {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmswe!team17!boberg
From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: REAL FALCON 030 SPECS
Date: 30 Sep 1992 00:14:29 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

u894776@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull) writes:
: Finally!  Someone on this group who isnt saying that having a well designed
: OS is good enough - you need a usable OS as well.

Then I'll state that you've never used or programmed under 2.04.

: Lets face it - some people bought STs merely because lots of software
: ran better on an ST than an Amiga.  Better - as in faster and more usable.

Again.  The AmigaOS was 5-10x more featured than the ST's OS.  It's
even better now.

: Compare a minimum configuration A500, versus an ST or Archimedes, or even

Arc?  Yeah, let's compare a RISC box.  Not.

: an old 8 bit machine like the BBC Microcomputer.  Which machine is the least
:usable - which machine has the slowest [perceived] disk accesses, which machin
: has the most awkward and ugly GUI?

Slowest disk access probably belongs to the 500.  However, UGLY OS it
is not.  I'll say now:  You've never seen or used 2.04.  2.04 is one
of the best-looking OSes I've ever used.  And I've used quite a few.

Perhaps someone could snapshot their WB screens into IFF files and
convert them for you to look at, they're damn nice.

Greg

--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: 	"Yeah, if improving the system is screwing the user base,     :)
(:	 you all need to be screwed more often." -Dave Haynie	      :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: REAL FALCON 030 SPECS
Date: 2 Oct 1992 07:57:12 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

Chris_Millar@lppl.mi.org (Chris Millar) writes:
: About the combined video/memory bus, etc....
: Atari installed a new BLITTER chip in the Falcon - technically, it is not a
: Blitter, but a multi-purpose I/O processor - it is called the COMBEL - it
: handles a great deal of disk reads and writes and all of the video mode
: handlings......the bandwidth limitations lie in the COMBEL's ability to
: process the video, and nothing else - and if you think the Falcon's video
: is slow, you have obviously never seen one - it zips!
: Oh, BTW, since the 68030 doesn't handle video, it is realistically rated at
: 4.5 MIPS.....

Mmph.  The "COMBEL" steals cycles from the memory system.  It gets
deterministic access (If it handles video, of course it does.)  The
more memory it needs to access (and hence the higher the resolution),
the less memory bandwidth is left for the 68030.

This means that right off the back, you'll have NO burst access.  Not
unless they did something really funky.  On top of that, the bigger
the resolution/depth, the slower that 68030 will run.

Let's say that the COMBEL steals every other access in its lowest
resolution.  Set it to that lowest resolution, and I don't think it's
possible to say that realistically.  Not unless everything's in cache.
A better figure would be to compute the MB/S throughput, to determine
how slow memory accesses are.

Greg

--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: 	"Yeah, if improving the system is screwing the user base,     :)
(:	 you all need to be screwed more often." -Dave Haynie	      :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Timothy Matthew Ciceran)
Subject: Re: A Commodore Engineer speaks out.
Organization: Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:46:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.160442.18785@clipper.ingr.com> kontos@clipper.ingr.com
(Thorne Kontos) writes:

[..]

>Suppose that next year we bring out another machine based on a different chip
>set that can do even more wonderful things than AA can. BUT, this new chip set
>doesn't have the same registers as AA. Why not? Because our chip designers
>could build the new chip set faster and cheaper than if it had to worry about
>AA register compatibility. That's reasonable isn't it? After all, only myself
>and Chris Green need to know how to program these chips.

>Now how are we to take this piece of news?
>That an even more advanced chip-set is in the works, that will orphan the
>AGA set in a year's time? But why start another rumor...

Considering the consternation over the A3000 and AGA chipset compatibility,
I'm surprised how much emphasis has been placed on the decision not to 
release AA register specs. If you look at 3.0, you will find
that a substantial effort has been made to decouple the OS from the video
hardware. The most essential piece of future technology will ultimately be RTG.
It is not the AGA chipset or any future incarnation that we have to consider,
but rather, the means by which this technology is referenced. Banging on
the hardware will place further constraints on new developments, while
short-term restrictions will lead to long-term gains.

 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: e91sg@efd.lth.se (Stefan Gimeson)
Subject: Re: Low End AGA Machine
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:54:57 GMT

In article <Marc.A.Echeveste.1-290992120346@129.74.207.54> Marc.A.Echeveste.1@nd.edu (Marc.A.Echeveste.1@nd.edu) writes:
>I have heard many mixed reviews about the A4000, but it seems that AGA is
>the wave of the future.  Since my old A500's just about kicked, I'm going
>to want a new Amiga, but the A4000 is a bit steep for this struggling
>college student.  This may be a dumb question, but is Commodore planning on
>coming out with an AGA machine that's a bit less pricey?  I'm sure they
>will, but any idea on when this might happen, and possible specs?  
>
>
>-Marc

According to a german friend of mine and some german Amiga-magazine
there will be an A1200 with -020, AGA, and a harddrive before 
christmas (that's christmas 1992 for all you pessimists out there...)
for about half the price of an A4000.
/stefan

===============================================================================
Stefan Gimeson                (e91sg@efd.lth.se)                              *
Tunavagen 39 B660                                                             *
S-223 63 Lund         *       (Boing,Boom,Tsack!)     (Words like violece)    *
                    U*MEN     (                 )     (breaks the silence)    *
Sweden                *        (  -KRAFTWERK-  )       (                )     *
Phone (0)46-141386   * *        (             )         (     -D.M-    )      *
=================================(           )===========(            )========
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?*
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT     *
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d  *
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
                                                                              *
===============================================================================
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: WB 3.0 on 3000
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:13:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

>   As I understand it, right now 3.0 is 4000 only, 2.1 is the new OS
>for the 3000.  BOTH will be superceded eventually by 3.1.  SO there is
>intended to be a migration path for the 3000, just not through 3.0.
>Sort of like 2.03 was only available for the 3000, but 2.04 is
>available for everything but the 1000.  Now is 2.1 (and 3.1 :-) going
>to be sold for the 1000?  That's my question!

Having seen it running on a 3000, I know it is not 4000-specific, however,
like 2.0 when it came out, it will be a while before it's available as an
upgrade kit to other users.

>					Robert I. Eachus

Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: "robert buonincontro" <robert.buonincontro@canrem.com>
Subject: cdtv is dead.
Reply-To: "robert buonincontro" <robert.buonincontro@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:58:53 EST


MS>I have said this many times before...  The engineers at CBM are too wrapped
MS>up in making the OS the only application for the machine.  If they spent 5%
MS>of their resources making a REAL application, like Windows Write or Term 2.2,
MS>or AmigaUUCP (and GRn :), they'd learn quickly what their theoretical OS
MS>knowledge was lacking in terms of application support.  Good ideas in an OS
MS>don't make a machine good enough to use for application work.  Good features
MS>to support applications make the machine good enough to use for applications
MS>work.

MS>And on top if it, they COULD have some useful things for the Amiga to do
MS>right out of the box, even if it were just to use a modem to call someplace
MS>to download stuff from the fish disks.  But compared to the more popular OSes,
MS>AmigaOS comes with nada.

 I know quite a few programmers who say they enjoy programming the Amiga.
This is due to the way the OS is setup. 
 
 As for Workbench not including any applications. Dos doesn't come with
any applications. System 7 doesn't come with any applications. Windows comes
with some primitive applications but Windows isn't considered a real OS.
 
 I do agree that Commodore should include some software so it's ready to use
out of the box. They always package Word Pros. Paint Program ect. with the
A500. I would like to see them include some software packages with the Amiga
3000 and Amiga 4000 computers. They could include something like Final Copy
or another Amiga Word Pro. along with a few other programs.

          robert.buonincontro&canrem.com
---
  DeLuxe 1.12 #8947  AMIGA : The Power To Be Creative!
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario, Canadas
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: tony@ais.org (Tony Poole)
Subject: Re: TO TONY POOLE (Should Atari Discussions Be Held Here?)
Organization: UMCC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:46:18 GMT

ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:


> Now, in order to force this conversation back to the original context, why
>do you have a problem with reading about Atari here? Is it a personal dislike
>for Atari? Perhaps, shown by your general remark about all Atari users, you

Listen Tommy....

I'm not, and wasn't, the one *bashing* Atari.  I happen to think Atari's
kind of a joke for a company (and this is really the only time you'll hear
me say this).  You were *constantly*, and *repeatedly* bashing them with the
same facts again, and again, and again, and again.....

Frankly, I was a little embarrased to be grouped together with you in some
people's minds (Amiga owners).

Give it a rest, will ya?  What *is* your point here?


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Poole                       tony@umcc.ais.org * tony@irie.ais.org 
Traverse City, MI USA          tony@cherry1.trv.mi.us * tony@cherry1.UUCP
From: terjem@stud.cs.uit.no (Terje Normann Marthinussen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga Blitter 40% slower than Atari Blitter (???)
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:53:12 GMT
Organization: University of Tromsoe

In article <etxansk.718382232@garbod20>, etxansk@garbo.ericsson.se writes:
>u894776@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull) writes:
>
>>wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:
>
> Sorry to interrupt your discussion, but:
>
>> [stuff deleted]
>
>>Lets be honest?  Who actually owns an STe to test this out?  Last time
>>I heard, CBM were selling more C64's a year than Atari could dream of
>>selling STes.
>
> Could somebody please reveal who's actually buying the ageing
>C64 computer? I know the STe never made it to the top, but as far
>as I can see there's no reason why we should even mention C64 sales
>any longer. Commodore UK's C64 Game System, a pathetic NES wanna-be,
>flopped out of sight.
>
> Anders Skelander
> 

I thought I read that C= sold 700.000 C64 last year....

Terje Marthinussen
terjem@stud.cs.uit.no
From: bc2y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Brian T Cheek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: 486 for Amiga: WHY NOT?
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:16:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.celcQh200WBK05vFps
Organization: Misc. student, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Some user just posted Big C is coming out with 486/33s.
* Great. *
Now why doesn't Commodore make a 486/33 for their beloved Amiga?
I would buy it.  (Yes, sound support would be important too.)
I know the market for these aren't big, but if not, then why tease us
with the PC slots!  Either make a 486/33 (heck how about a 486DX2/100)
or save me from paying good $ for useless slots!
Just thinking about how cool it would be to have 1 machine on my desk,
an A3000, with AMAX-II, and a 486/33.
Think of it; One 21" color monitor. One keyboard.  All that left over
desk space...
-Ramblin' Brian :)
(If anyone knows about Sampo's 21" Color monitor for $1299 Please Email Moi.)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: u894776@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull)
Subject: Re: REAL FALCON 030 SPECS
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:33:18 GMT

etxansk@garbo.ericsson.se writes:

> But it's still nice to see how many applications run faster on a
>humble Atari 520ST computer (compared to an Amiga 500).

> I know the CPU's supposed to run faster if it isn't delayed by video
>DMA, but is there a working Amiga system where this (speed improvement)
>effect really shows? Can it be achieved on an A500 (without a mother
>board replacement)?

Just add fast ram.  I wish the A600 had 1 meg chip, and 1 meg fast, and a
68030.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: tsuikki@lut.fi (Teemu Suikki)
Subject: Re: COMMODORE - HERE'S A CLUE
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:30:10 GMT
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland

In article <OA92-901-306p1_811BCB94@piraya.bad.se> Hans_Bergengren@p1.thulos.bbs.bad.se (Hans Bergengren) writes:
>
>CBM should (IMO) not bother with the '020, since no computer is using it since
>the last few years back. It's so slow, but of course, if they could wedge one

'020 is not slow. It's speed is about 80% of 68030 running at same clock
frequency.


-- 
tsuikki@lut.fi + Fido 2:221/103.2 + Pink Floyd + Amiga500 = Aragorn
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey)
Subject: Re: READ THIS AMIGANS, FALCON 030 SPECS
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:41:51 GMT
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN

In article <35406@cbmvax.commodore.com> grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes:
=Nope, there has actually been little turnover among the key Amiga development
=personel since development was moved to West Chester, probably less than the
=US average for high-tech/computer companies.
=

	The ex UNIX dept. and some CDTV people might disagree with you
	on this point...

		-Rob
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: Falcon 030 vs. "next generation" Amiga
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:47:02 GMT

In article <61221@aurs01.UUCP> whitcomb@aurxc3.aur.alcatel.com.UUCP (Jonathan Whitcomb) writes:
>Okey, I'll bite.  
>
>I bought an ST back in the pre-Amiga days and have been happily using it
>ever since.  [...]
>
>Now, would any of you Amiga fans who are inclined to dismiss the Falcon
>sight-unseen care to give me any compelling reasons to wait for an Amiga
>in the Falcon's price range with similar capabilities for my needs?

Nope, not me anyway.  It sounds like you should stick with Atari as
long as you can, considering your current investment.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy