HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jayson@tbag.UUCP (Jayson Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: A3000 & AMax, Available Memory
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:32:58 EST
Organization: Tampa Bay Amiga Group

>From: Larry_Rosenstein@taligent.com
>Subject: 
>Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 15:59:25 -0800
 
>In article <jayson.010s@tbag.uunet.uu.net>, jayson@tbag.uunet.uu.net
>(Jayson Phillips) writes:
>> 
>>     Memory   5824K
 
>What does About the Finder say?  You might have 5.8 Mb, but the system
>might not be able to use it all with the 128K ROMs.
 
A3000/25 running AMaxII
-----------------------
 
Finder 6.1 - Memory: 5824K,  Largest Unused Block: 5213K
 
Mac Envy 2.1 - Memory: 5824K,  Processor: 68020,  Coproc: 68882
 
Speedometer 2.5 - Memory: 5824K,  Processor: 68020,  Coproc: YES
 
Microsoft Works 2.00b - With the Wordprocessor running (1 Page document)
                      "About" shows 97% Memory Free
               
 
>> straight  processing,  is  easily faster the the MacIIci and bearly a shade
 
>For a fair comparison, you would have to run the ci in 1-bit per pixel
>mode, which is all you get with AMAX.
 
The program doc doesn't state the screen mode that the other Macs were in
when they obtained their figures. I'm assuming that the figures for other
Mac systems, shown in the program, are run in their fastest mode.  I could
be wrong, but why would they show less than the fastest time for a system?
 
>Larry Rosenstein
>Taligent, Inc.
 
                            _        _   _   _   _
  Jay Phillips  /\  |\/| | / _  /\   _) / \ / \ / \ 68030/68882-25MHz
  Tampa FL USA /--\ |  | | \_/ /--\  _) \_/ \_/ \_/ 6MB-RAM   Q105-HD
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  USENET: tbag!jayson@uunet.uu.net                GENIE: B.Phillips13
  -------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: Jerry "knows" 486's faster than 68040.
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:17:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.165843.1@cc.helsinki.fi> lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>
>Do not belive in benchmarks so blindly. Benchmarks are too dependent on other
>things (compilers, external caches etc.).

I recently posted an article about this, but maybe it didn't get out.  News
to here isn't real reliable.  Anyway, benchmarks are valid ways of comparing
systems, although it's important to ensure that the systems _are_ comparable,
including the OS, which probably means Specmarks on UNIX systems.  The other
thing is that, to be fair, the compilers should be generating 040 and 486
optimised code.  The early benchmarks of 040 systems were using 030 compilers
and 882 emulation libraries, which made them much slower than they could have
been.  Jerry may have been referring to these early benchmarks.

>68040 instrucions are in average perhaps 30-50% faster than equivalent 486
>instrcutions while instruction set on both is comparable.

Sort of, but the 040 lacks the string instructions of the x86 series.

>68040 has 8 general purpouse registers and 7 general purpouse data registers
>(all 32 bit). Didn't 486 have 2 *general purpouse* registers and several
>others? That means more register shuffle on 486.

I suggest you learn a little more about the 486 before flaming it.

User mode on the 68000 series has 8 data registers, which can be used
interchangeably, and 8 address registers, one of which is used as the stack
pointer.  All are 32-bit.  In the 386 (and 486), you have 4 "data" registers,
called EAX to EDX, and 4 "address" registers, consisting of base pointer,
source and destination indexes, and the stack pointer.  All of these are 32
bit, unless you're running 286 or 8086 code, in which case they're 16-bit.
There are of course also the segment registers and all the other registers
on both the 040 and 486 which only the OS should touch, but these are your
basic user registers.

You're right about the 040 having more than the 486, but your numbers are
out.


-- 

David Meiklejohn                  | Internet : davidme@qdpii.comp.qpdi.oz.au
Computer Systems Officer, QDPI    | Fax      : +61 70 92 3593
Mareeba, Australia                | Voice    : +61 70 92 1555
From: bleys@tronsbox.UUCP (Bill Cavanaugh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Amigas Announced!!!!
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:25:12 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

In article <Mike_Whalen.0brg@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US> Mike_Whalen@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Mike Whalen) writes:
>
>  Wait.. you actually LIKE Panther Urine (read: American Beer). What about
>Guiness Extra Stout? What about Harp? What about Chimay Ale?)
>
>  Jeez.
>
>
	Holy Cow.  So far, almost everybody here has voted for my fave,
Guinness, and now somebody has mentioned my second fave, Chimay (made
by Belgian monks).  Wow!  I guess Amiga owners tend to go for
expensive, idiosyncratic brands in everything we do!<grin>

bill
-- 
 *         Bill Cavanaugh       bleys@tronsbox.xei.com          *
 *                                                              *
           "Thought and affliction, passion, hell itself,
           She turns to favor and to prettiness."
                   Laertes (speaking of Ophelia)        XY + XX = :-)
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: Archimedes?
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:53:04 GMT

bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell) writes:

>>Where can one be purchased?

>The UK. It's not available overseas.

  The Archimedes is certainly sold through ordinary dealers in NZ
and Australia.  I believe you can even get it in Canada if you 
look hard enough... It's just here in the U.S. that it's never been
seen.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.                     NZ for the America's Cup!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: CBM is a game machine company
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:16:05 GMT

marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk (Marcus Harvey) writes:
>drollin@seq.uncwil.edu (David A. Rollins) writes:
>>Unlike Apple and IBM, CBM makes their products with the ability to
>>upgrade from one computer sytem to the next. One does not have to
>>give up his software to move up a grade.
>
>You can run Adobe PhotoShop on a Mac Plus (don't know why you'd want
>to but you can).

Yes, you can also run PhotoShop on an Amiga (with AmaxII, of course).
I would rather see new versions of software which use such things as
FPUs and MMUs and whatever else modern systems have.

>>I admit that I am waiting for CBM to shock the market with something
>>to make the competition rush to the drawing board, but I see nothing
>>wrong with broadening the user base by offering low-end computers.
>>
>Don't hold your breath.

I already tried waiting for Commodore.  They rewarded this patience
with the A600.  I'll leave the game machines to the game players, and
buy an Intel PC until Commodore gets it right.

-- Gerald
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: Juicy tidbits
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:55:34 GMT

har@ux.acs.umn.edu (--SeebS--) writes:
>>
>>[32K-color VGA]
>>
>>No, Ian, but I can display two different 256-color GIFs in two different
>>windows without any color loss.
>
>Well, geez, that's so fucking productive I can't even believe it. Sheesh.
>

Jealous? :)

>
>The way I see it, 32k colors is what, 15 bits? What the *hell* are you
>doing wasting enough cpu time to draw 15 bits, so you can show two gif's
>at once.
>

The VGA I'm talking about has an S3 coprocessor on it -- very little CPU
time is "wasted", if any.

>
>256color I can believe; after all, I can easily use maybe 10 apps at once,
>and maybe they need 16 colors each, and well I suppose a windowing system
>might eat 30 colors for neat window borders.
>

"16 colors for each app?  What a waste of CPU!" :)

>
>Beyond that, there is *absolutely* no point to this.
>

Yep, just like there's no point to memory protection, virtual memory,
or high-resolution graphics, right Peter?  Let's see, if there's no
point to 16-bit graphics, then 24-bit graphics is an even bigger waste,
right?

>
>But the point is, I'm not
>claiming that my machine is infinitely more useful and productive than yours.
>It probably is, but it would be just as productive with only 16 colors at
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a time, and probably almost as productive with a simple 4-level grayscale
>monitor.
>

Gee, thanks for "not" claiming that your machine is infinitely more useful
than mine.  That's real big of you, Peter.

>
>Productivity does not come from 32k of colors, and I see such toys
>as a complete waste of computing power. Either admit it's a toy, or use
>something which doesn't waste so much power.
>

OK, let's go ahead and add 16- and 24-bit graphics to the list of things
Amiga users, in their wisdom beyond years, find unnecessary.

>
>Peter Seebach, using my fiancee's acount. 
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
|                            jerry@polygen.com                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: To Nish...answer, please.
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:03:19 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Apr15.224149.1414@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:

> Why do we even bother talking about this? It is obvious we are not going
> get exact equal comparisons, so we should do this the easy way. Get 
> a magazine that has already tried comparing the two and read their results
> (like I said before, something like a UNIX magazine that tested a common
> operating system, etc.)
> 
> Another reason why we should do this, instead of talk about testing, is,
> that the benchmarks have to be comprehensive to some point. They should 
> actually DO something, 

And you still don't get it.
	It was not the question which systems have better compilers nor was the
question about software algorihms. It was about CPU speed.

There may be two kind of benchmarks on magazines: first, there is traditional
benchmarks which are pretty much useless because of system, compiler, compiler
option etc. differences, and the there are benchmarks made by using real
applications. However real applications may tell you even less (and probably do
tell you less) when you compare CPU's of different architecture. Why? Because
different programs do use different algorithms and methods to do their job and
therefor you can not compare CPU's by runing different applications on each
platform (and you must run different applications on each platform as 80x86 and
680x0 are _not_ compatible with each other.(surprise, surprise :) ).

Nish, why have you not yet answered my question I've asked you about 5 times:
what, in your opinion, makes 80486 superior in speed when compared to 68040? Is
it the instruction set? I doubt that. Is it the amount of register shuffle? I
don't think so. Is it because it has unified cache with no copyback? No, it
can't be. Is it because it's instructions are 30-50% slower than equalent 68040
instructions? What makes the 80486 a faster CPU in your mind?

--
Jarkko Lindblad
lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi
 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: Graphics boards
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:55:39 GMT

jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>
>>I have to go with what is available.  The DMI Resolver is the closest thing
>>that the Amiga has to SVGA.  Actually, that is not quite true.  The SVGA
>>cards for Intel machines will also work in the A2000--with the Bridgeboard,
>>of course.
>>
>
>Fine, but then we should equip our PC with a TIGA graphics card for a fair
>comparison, right?

Of course.  Can you still claim that the 25MHz 386 outperforms a 25MHz
A3000?

-- Gerald
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu Ayala)
Subject: AmigaShell (What Good Is It?)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 15:53:22 GMT


  I'm interested in what the AmigaShell can do in addition to
  CLI.  My manual doesn't say much.  I'm pretty good at using
  CLI, but don't know much about the AmigaShell.  Is it like
  Csh on UNIX?   I know that a lot of power users have gone out
  and got other shells like csh, or wsh, but right now I'm
  just interested in exploring the capabilities of AmigaShell
  and looking for interesting shell scripts.  What is all that
  SPAT stuff, or the .bra ket stuff?

  Since I didn't get any answers from .introduction, I figure
  I'd ask all you experts in .advocacy.  I'm sure you experts can
  tell me what good AmigaShell is, and what I can do with
  it, whether it is Unix-like, whether MACs have it to extend
  their CLI, whether MS-DOS has anything like this.

  I want to know about environment variables, how to set them,
  how to make my prompt do fancy stuff, how to set up a "login"
  so that when someone boots the amiga, I can have them login
  and jump to their disk partition for their home directory.
  And any other tips and hints you might have.

  Thanks, Clare
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Chu, Ph.D.             Data & Information Services
NYNEX Science & Technology   clare@nynexst.com
White Plains, NY 10462       AMIGA RULES!!!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: rickan@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Mark Rickan)
Subject: Androgenous Corporations (was Yes: Mr. Bill, Commodore has no balls)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:33:31 GMT

In article <#!pj69k@lynx.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
writes:

>"Hello Mr. Bill.  Why are you all dressed up in that business
>suit today?"

[...]

Funny you should mention "Mr. Bill" within the context of the Amiga. According
to the article "Meet the Video Toaster" in the January issue of Discover
(p.65), Walter "Mr. Bill" Williams is now using the Toaster for production
work.

But alas, I digress. Oh Nooo!

Mark

-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 = Mark Rickan                         ...!uunet!utai!utgpu!maccs!rickan = 
 = DCSS, McMaster University               rickan@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca = 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: justin@mik.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom"
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:56:08 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Paula Lieberman writes
> Postscript.. it's s de facto standard, but a number of people lately have
> been telling me that it chokes printers on complex output files -- NOT a
> feature! 

Then (with respect) they don't know what they're doing. If you have very little  
RAM in a PostScript printer, it will choke on complex output. If you have a  
very old printer (LaserWriter, LaserWriter Plus for instance) with new  
software, it will probably choke anyway. If your software is at fault (very  
likely. probably very common on the Amiga :), then switch software.

--
*******************************************************************************
* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh>                      *
* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions.    *
*******************************************************************************
From: mbs@adastra.cvl.va.us (Michael B. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  "Room" for Windows
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:10:03 GMT
Reply-To: adastra!mbs@Virginia.Edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Private UUCP Node

In article <1992Apr07.191055.14806@watson.ibm.com> sck@watson.ibm.com (Scott C. Kennedy) writes:
>I'm afraid that Commodore doesn't own any patents or copyrights to the idea of
>pre-emptive multi-tasking, but they were the first company to successfully sell
>a low-end multi-tasking machine. For examples of other multi-tasking boxes, look
>at Mutlics, Unix, OS/9, VM, MVS, VMS, and others. All of which predate the
>Amiga.

Sheesh. Look at the Burroughs B5000. Which predates all of the above. And has
had an uninterrupted upgrade path for the last 30 years...
--
  //   Michael B. Smith
\X/    ...!uunet!virginia!adastra!mbs
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: EISA vs. ZorroIII
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:07:32 GMT

davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) writes:

Bi
>EISA will go quite fast, as in 32 MHz, until you plug in one of the old AT
>bus cards that are so common.  The standard speed for the ISA (AT) bus is
>8.3 MHz.  Many ISA systems have the option of running the bus faster than

I NEVER claimed EISA will see such performance increases with ISA cards.
I fully realize you will need EISA cards for performance.

And you do not need EISAcards for everything. What would be the point of
an EISA card for things like S/p/g port, modem, or anything besides
harddrive controllers and a few very special cases. Because of the 
compatibility with ISA, you do not have to spend more money for something
that would be overkill.

Making boards on the Amiga that are designed to take advantage of a 32-bit
fast bus will cost more than just making it able to go at 16-bit and a low
throughput.

Nish Patel   nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
n
From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  Considering switching to IBM
Distribution: world
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:49:53 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1992Apr5.172231.1382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>I am trying to direct this to advocacy only, so if it shows up on some other
>group, and you do not care for advocacy material, just ingnore this.
>
>Gregory Harp writes that a multiprocessor card for some system uses Motorola 
>chips, 1 040, 10 020's, in response to my post about multiprocessing. Well,
>I never claimed that there is a physical limitation against it. There are
>many multiprocessed 386 systems, and the 386 is not a multiprocessing 
>processor like the 486 is. So it is possible. But not common, harder to do,
>and less efficient.

You should tell this to companies like Encore, Sequoia, Stratus, Charles
River Data Systems, and others who have been doing this for years. The 68K
family is perfectly suited for multiprocessing and parallel processing.

--
Rick Kelly		Rick's Amiga		Framingham, Mass.

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: justin@graphlab.cc.uky.edu  (Justin Sullivan)
Subject: Re: AppleEvents, how to they work?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:59:45 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com writes
> From your description, it sounds like AppleEvents provide a
> way for one application to drive the GUI of another.  e.g.
> For application A to get application B to open a file:
> 
>    App A tells App B to display the 'Open" dialog
>    App A inserts the filename into the dialog
>    App A tells App B to click OK in the dialog
>    App B then opens the file.
> 
> i.e. App B never knows it's not being driven by the user.
> 
> *IF* this is the case, then as a user I prefer the AREXX method.
> An application's AREXX interface should provide the same
> functionality as the GUI, but is specifically tailored for a
> command line/script environment.  e.g. To get App A to tell
> app B to open a file, one does:

It is not.. It is performing the same commands, but it's all transparent to the  
user (unless you write it to actually display the dialogs, etc.). 

>    open "filename"

And if the user was off in another program, he or she would never even know  
this was being done (for instance). In no way does it have to be a  
'user-conscience' operation.
 
> But to drive the applications GUI,  I imagine it would be much more
> combursone, i.e.
> 
>    'click' the circle tool
>    send a mouse click to X,Y
>    send a mouse click to X+R,Y
>    'click' select the circle
>    open the line-thickness dialog
>    click the desired thickness
>    click ok.

You can, but it is FAR less cumbersome then this..
Basically, 'select circle tool, with radius r' and that's that.
--
*******************************************************************************
* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh>                      *
* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions.    *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: Amiga Inadequacy
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:23:33 GMT

po87553@cs.tut.fi (Pasi 'Albert' Ojala) writes:
>There are little programs out there to make amiga windows zoom also, so..
>I used one back in '89.

Yes, I used one of these, too.  It held my interest for almost 5 minutes.

-- Gerald
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: Jerry "knows" 486's faster than 68040.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:11:27 GMT

it is interesting how whenver Amiga owners are faced with evidence proving
slower performance, they say, well it depends on the OS and the compiler
and blah blah blah.

All this proves is that compilers on Amigas suck, which means their
applications will suck. And the OS sucks, so do not say anything more about
how great your OS is, because you just claimed that it sucks.

Nish Patel   nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
A