HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mbrown@legend.akron.oh.us (MARK BROWN)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Reply-To: mbrown@legend.akron.oh.us
X-Software: Legend (216-825-2747) UUCPShell v4.9/med20Dec92
X-Disclaimer: Opinions of users do not necessarily reflect those of managment
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:33:00 EST
Organization: The Legend BBS Public Access (216)825-2747

All the OS/2 machines I have seen have a Muffin fan on the CPU Too!, 
Damn, OS/2 runs the Intel Chipset down to its bare mettle parts and 
hot enough to cook breakfast(Not complaining about OS/2 just the 
machine that it is run on.).
    Mark
From: slhmz@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Well, I found...
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:20:27 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Dec24.193018.22319@usl.edu>, das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
> Well, I found how to get the A1000 into 640X400 mode, rebooted,
> and immediately went to preferences to turn it off. 
> 
> How can you guys stand that flicker?  Please don't tell me you 'get used to
> it'.  I guess you get those add-ons, 'flicker-correctors'.

It isn't "add-on" in the Amiga 1200/4000/3000 series.
But hey, on the same level, don't you have to buy "add-ons" for PCs?

   * Sound Card
   * Video Card
   * Input/Output Card
   * <insert name of card here>

Hmm....

--
Faith Gibson

 
> Hmm.
> --
> 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
From: mike@struad.cts.com (Michael Cianflone)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Date: 1 Jan 93 01:32:14 GMT
Organization: Structured Applications & Designs, Inc. R&D Institute.

In article <1992Dec25.215547.26283@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>In article <monster.05uh@mbear.apana.org.au> monster@mbear.apana.org.au (Martin Ozolins) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.155058.20344@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>> 
>>> You're pretty much correct about that, but things are changing.  For example,
>>> many DOS games now require 386SX and up (they use 32-bit code), and the
>>
>>I thought it was due to poor programming which needed a faster CPU to cover it up
>
>You guys are hopeless.
>
>>Martin Ozolins :Internet monster@mbear.apana.org.au
>--
>Dan Stephenson                                         das9674@usl.edu  

  It's because on the PC the processor has to do *everything* whereas on the
Amiga the custom chips take a lot of the load. For the PC to have reasonable
speed on good games it needs to use a very fast processor, but on the Amiga
it can be done on a 68000.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:38:36 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

John Bickers (jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz) wrote:
:
:     Jerry's statement about the 800 was also meaningless, because it
:     depends on his definition of "useful application". Applications
:     that are currently considered useful, with the feature level that
:     current applications and operating systems seem to require, would
:     not run on his Atari 800. They would and do run on Amigas, PCs and
:     Macs.
:

Yet they would not and do not run on Peter's $199 512K Amiga with no HD,
which is what we were talking about.  This discussion would have been moot
several articles ago if you hadn't twisted it around.

:
: *** John Bickers, TAP.                   jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Date: 28 Dec 92 12:00:55 PST
Organization: TAP

Quoted from <1hkk23INNero@mozz.unh.edu> by pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro):

> If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I've followed
> comp.compression), the problems with PKZIP 2.0 only occurs in certain
> 486 motherboards.  It's got something to do with DMA and external
> cache coherency, but it isn't a problem with the 486 chip.

    Yes, that's the way I remember it also. I'm not saying it's a
    problem with the '486 chip, I'm saying it's a problem with '486
    machines and the idea that programs can cater specifically for
    each of the generations of CPU.

> Paul
--
*** John Bickers, TAP.                   jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***    "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk    ***
From: monster@mbear.apana.org.au (Martin Ozolins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
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: 2 Jan 93 09:01:04 PST
Organization: Bears Incorporated

In article <1hv80bINNjkt@uwm.edu> bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
> In article <1992Dec31.154916.16022@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
> >Don't you think that for some people, VM, MP, DIG, etc., may be worth a few
> >extra CPU cycles?  If real-time response is always the most important thing,
> >why do all these other OS's bother with all these other things?
> 
> With VM, it isn't the CPU cycles that drop your performance like a
> rock...
> 
> And how many real-time OSes _HAVE_ VM?  Think about it.  Sure, you'll
> see lots of bloated pigs with it, but...

Checked any Mainframe Operating Systems ?
EXEC-8 ( UniSYS ) and the one that runs on IBM Mainframes both have VM and are
both Realtime Systems.

And yes, when using the VM the performance drops by a massive amount even on
Mainframes, so imagine how slow things are on PCs using VM.

More Memory is far better than VM but sometimes there is no choice

-- 

Martin Ozolins :Internet monster@mbear.apana.org.au
Victoria       :FIDO 3:633/359.6 AMIGANET 41:300/359.6 TRINET 42:8699/8.6
Australia      :Amiga Programmer, UniSYS 1100/2200 Systems Programmer
From: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Future Amiga chipset
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:28:28 GMT
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Flying Cat, Inc.

In article <BzMEAy.Esu@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>In article <38092@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes:
>>I don't think you can count him as 'here'.  He probably doesn't buy
>>Amiga hardware or software, and certainly doesn't contribute
>>to the Amiga community (unless you count his campaign to keep WordPerfect
>>off the Amiga as a 'contribution'.)
>
>   I was trying to keep a bunch of people from wasting their time.  I have

If you really wanted to stop wasting people's time, you'd stop posting.

Active discouragement is hard to justify.  From your postings, I
seriously doubt you care how much time anyone wastes.  No, you were
just continuing your anti-Amiga campaign.

>exchanged e-mail messages with the president of Word Perfect Corp., way back
>when they first announced that they were abandoning the Amiga.  If anything, 
>it was primarily due to the letter-campaign that I initiated that Word Perfect

You've posted this claim before, and it still doesn't ring true;  
Basically, you have not proven to me that you've ever done anything
that will help the Amiga, Amiga users, or, in fact, anyone.

>>The 1200 is probably a going to be a big success.  That will probably
>>change things.  (BTW, where'd you hear EA was dropping the Amiga ?
>>That doesn't match with what I've heard)
>
>   You hope.  The noose around the A1200's neck is the software situation.  And
>Commodore is not taking the steps they need to improve this situation.  As a
>for instance, take a look at the letter written to me by the people who 
>developed 'DataTax'.  These people do not believe the Amiga has a large enough
>installed base in the U.S. to support even one good tax preparation program.
>The letter was posted to comp.sys.amiga.announce a few days ago.

I've not seen it;  I'll certainly look at it, keeping in mind
that I have no way of verifying what your letter to them said
(ie it could have flamed them, it could have been a letter asking
them never to support the Amiga), and I have no way of verifying
that their letter to you was anything like you posted.)

After all, I have to remember the reputation you've obviously
spent much time building.

>| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu



			andy
-- 
andy finkel		andy@cbmvax.commodore.com

"Unix is the Operating System of the future, and always will be."

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:32497 comp.sys.amiga.games:17448 comp.sys.amiga.misc:19306 rec.games.chess:12249
From: vmkiili@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Ville-Matti Kiili)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: UChess 2.10 avail via ftp
Date: 2 Jan 93 14:26:47 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Roger Uzun (uzun@crash.cts.com) wrote:
> UChess 2.10, which adds many features, and fixes up timing somewhat,
> is available via anonymous ftp at:

It adds a bug, too. ;) Choose 'Set Depth' from the menu and click the
left mouse button outside the 'Computer Time Ctrl' window and there it
is... 8I

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
  Ville-Matti Kiili                                // Only Amiga makes 
  vmkiili@cc.helsinki.fi                         \X/  it impossible... 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:22:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.175003.22727@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
> Philip McDunnough (philip@utstat.toronto.edu) wrote:
> : The biggest hype around surrounds all these 486's and their fast 
> : hard drives, which for the most part are still running 8 bit software and
> : can't figure out which interrupts are taken.

> Interesting statement, Philip.  The original PC had an 8088 CPU.  How does
> one write 8-bit software for a 16-bit (internal) CPU?

Well, when you're working with a programming model based on the 8080 with
the addition of segment registers it's easy to get confused. Yes, the 8088
was every bit as 16-bit as a low-end PDP-11.

But still, I'd rather have a 68040 running 32-bit software (by your logic, the
68000 is 32-bit) to a 80486 running 16-bit software.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   Oletko halannut suttasi tnn?
  'U`    
Tarjoilija, tm ateria el viel.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:45:39 PST
Organization: TAP

Quoted from <1992Dec28.002742.1488@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> by jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel):

> ... But even if it *were* built on top of DOS,
> why does that make it not worthwhile?  See, you're still trying to pass off
> your opinions for fact.

    You are trying to dismiss the current stance taken by most of the
    computer industry as just my opinion.

    Do you even admit that DOS is a broken vestige of the past? Are
    you aware that Microsoft themselves are writing a replacement for
    Windows, "Windows NT", in order to elevate Windows to the level
    that OS/2 2.0 is already at?

    You sound much like the old CP/M hacks in BYTE, who have been left
    behind by progress.

> :     Noticeably faster? So before Windows 3.1, your 386 PC's GUI
> :     performance was NOT "as good as or better than" an A3000's?

> It was hard to tell, comparing a stock A3000 and my 386 with ET4000 VGA,

    And yet you calmly said that your 386's GUI performance had always
    been as good as or better than an A3000. Good stuff.

> :     sure why you're leaving it out now. Secondly, it shows that
> :     Windows at least had room for _software_ improvement to window
> :     updates. Which PC advocates here didn't seem to think possible
> :     before 3.1. No, back then it was talk of graphics accelerator

> Have you ever heard of software that *didn't* have room for performance
> improvement?  If you think you have, you're badly mistaken.

    Not at all! But I remember people arguing before 3.1 that the
    Windows GUI performance was slow, and that the way Windows did
    updates was crippling it. You and people like you emphatically
    denied that, saying how cheap it was to get various graphics
    cards to boost performance.

> | JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
--
*** John Bickers, TAP.                   jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***    "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk    ***
From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 1200/4000 pricing
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:05:53 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1992Dec30.072830.8845@midway.uchicago.edu> sjchmura@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Is Safe HArbor an authorised dealewr 
>by the way?  I asked and the guy said "I guess".

Must be new help.  :)

Seriously, the guys at Safe Harbor are great--most of them have been
there for a long time.  Yes, they're an authorized dealer.  To be more
specific, they're the best authorized dealer I've ever had the
pleasure to buy from here in Milwaukee.  Perhaps 20 minutes from here.
(I'm not in their 'burb...)  The people are very helpful (well, the
few I ever talk to on the phone, anyways.  It seems to always be one
of two people, and both have been there for years.  That's why I said
there must be someone new there).  They run a local BBS where you can
place orders and snoop through their online catalog.

Greg, with no affiliations except as a satisfied customer...
(from stdplug.h)



--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Our father, who art in Iowa, Hollow be thy head, Thy ideas run    :)
(:  Thy will be done, At Commodore as it is at Apple"  -Dan Barrett   :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: () :) :) :) Wubba, the Dark Angel :)
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:32:03 PST
Organization: TAP

Quoted from <1992Dec22.153227.19928@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> by jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel):

> : Hmm. That would be a problem if screens were the only feature of the GUI.
> : On the Amiga you have screens _and_ windows and wether programs have a
> : consistent user interface or can talk to each other doesn't depend on
> : being on an extra screen or not.

> I disagree.  Why is it, then, that Amiga programs *don't* have consistent
> user interfaces?  IMHO, screens are useful on the Amiga for two reasons.

    What worthwhile PC OS has programs with consistent user
    interfaces?

    Also, with Snap or PowerSnap, it is easy to cut and paste from one
    application to another. God knows how you do it under Windows or
    OS/2.

> First, they are a speed optimization, which isn't necesary on systems with
> decent GUI performance.  Second, some applications need to work at certain

    The Amiga has better GUI performance than most systems mentioned
    here, except maybe the Archimedes.

> screen resolutions, and this wouldn't be the case if the Amiga had DIG.

    This foolish statement is very reminiscent of what Dan S said
    about people twisting HDs into a Bad Thing. The different video
    modes that the Amiga hardware supports are a Good Thing, and DIG
    is irrelevant to them.

    The fact that the OS can manage the different video modes in a
    manner that is _better_ than OS/2 2.0 just shows how slick the
    Amiga is.

> | JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
--
*** John Bickers, TAP.                   jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***    "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk    ***
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:31930 comp.sys.amiga.misc:18929
From: marv@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Marv Gordon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:25:09 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.

papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>"Multitasking VDM"? Oh, you're running them in a DOS emulator, then. They're
>>not written for OS/2. Ah, that explains it.
>>
>>Eventually you will start getting some games written for OS/2, then maybe
>>you'll be able to do all this nice stuff we've been doing on our Amigas since
>>late 1985.
>
>#1.Most Amiga games CANNOT multitask, with, say a download (which is
>what we were discussing.
>
>#2.At least a DOS program under OS/2 cannot grab hold of the whole
>machine, an Amiga program can.
>
>#3.If I decide to cancel my terminal communication and run the DOS
>game alone, it will probably end up being a better game then an Amiga
>user's wet dream!
>
>I can't wait to see the next one...seventh guest.  2 CDs of three
>dimensional raytracing in ONE game.  

1. Many Amiga games CAN multitask.  It's usually the games written for the
European market (small systems) that DONT!
 
2. Hey a DOS program running on AMIGA acts the same way on a bridgeboard. Your
lucky to get many DOS programs to run.. You have to putz with so many differnt
DOS settings its a joke.
 
3. Boy that's a cute one.  You don't have to decide to cancel your term
program, it will lock up on it's own :)
 
Just another case of penis envy.....


UUCP: {tcnet, crash, quest}!orbit!pnet51!marv
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!marv@nosc.mil
INET: marv@pnet51.orb.mn.org
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: Future Amiga chipsets
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:04:41 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: hemi.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Gregory R Block (bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu) wrote:
:
: No, it's not, it actually has a large basis in reality.  Let's take
: the explanation a little further.  A bus, in theory, should be fast
: enough to allow the CPU to transfer at speeds approaching or equal to
: the rough approximation of the maximum speed at which the CPU can
: transfer data.  Anything less, and the bus becomes a bottleneck which
: must be dealt with.  When that bottleneck becomes large, such as a
: 33mhz i486 sitting on an ISA architecture, that becomes a crippling
: bottleneck.  For ISA transfers, or anything of a similar reign whose
: bus speeds are minute in size compared to the throughput that is
: needed, the bottleneck cripples the system.
:

Yes, but this is only true for peripherals which are capable of transferring
data as quickly as the 486.  It is *not* true for everyday devices, such as
disk drives, printers, and serial ports.  On the other hand, I can see how
local bus technology benefits non-coprocessed video.

:
: >I ask you again.  What can't my ISA PC do directly because of ISA bus
: >limitations?  Look, I'll even help you by mentioning one thing: DMA to
: >memory above 16MB can't happen due to the ISA's 24 address lines, but then
: >again, it's invisible at the end-user level.  Is there anything else?
:
: Bottlenecks seem to be invisible to the user, too.  You don't notice
: them unless you're on a system which makes it obvious...
:

Look, I work in the molecular modeling industry, where the software easily
makes the latest superworkstations sweat.  I work with powerful systems like
the HP and DEC Alpha every day.  I also work with lower-end Sparcs and SGI's.
I don't notice much difference between a Sparc II and my x86 PC running SVR4,
other than that the PC *feels* a bit faster, but that's probably because it's
not tied to a network like the Sparc.  Nevertheless, you're implying that
after using something like a Sparc or an SGI, the PC's bottlenecks would jump
right out at me, and I'm telling you, it's not like that at all.

:
: Greg
:
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:38:51 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: phoenix.msi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Aric.Caley@ofa123.fidonet.org wrote:
:
: He's  talking  HARDWARE.   The  Amiga  hardware  allows  for true, multiple
: screens,  in  a way thats different from any computer I have ever seen.
:

Yeah, yeah.  The Atari 400 could do similar things, although, of course, it
didn't have a multitasking OS to take advantage of it.  The video display
was constructed from a list of instructions, each of which could specify
the resolution and pixel data address of a single line of graphics (or text).
Add horizontal blank interrupts, and you can modify the palette after each
scan line.  Interesting, but really nothing new.

:
: While  we're  at  it,  another somewhat related feature of Amiga screens is
: that  they  can  be MUCH larger than the visible area - you could have, for
: instance,  a  1280 x 800 virtual screen with only a 640 x 400 part visible.
: The  screen  will  then scroll around automaticaly when the pointer reaches
: the  bounds  of  the  visible  screen.  The only limitation is memory - the
: chips  can handle resolutions in excess of 32k x 32k (but you couldn't make
: a  screen  that  large - it'd need 128 megs for B&W!).  I don't know of any
: computer  that  has the stock ability to do this in hardware (I believe the
: common term for this is "hardware panning").
:

Any PC with VGA can do this.  I use hardware panning to display an 1152x900
screen at 800x600 resolution in X-Windows (my monitor can't handle anything
above that without interlace).  As I move the mouse beyond an edge of the
visible screen, the whole thing pans in realtime.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... |     Burlington, MA USA     | in my book of memories.   |
|    ... In rhythm! |        jerry@msi.com       |         -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+