HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Future Amiga chipset
Date: 18 Dec 92 04:16:44 GMT
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>In article <n11f3t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Aric.Caley@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>
>>I  remember  reading about a SCSI-II controler that was pin-compatible with
>>the one in the A3000 (though it wasnt recomended as a drop in replacement).
>
>That's the WD33C93B.  It's certainly supposed to fully conform to SCSI-2, it
>has a bit that can be set to toggle between that mode and, in theory, 
>compatibility with the "A" part.  This won't really get anything.  The
>scsi.device is already SCSI-2 legal, and this chip doesn't go any faster
>than the "A".

	Well, it can do SCSI-Fast Sync, but the driver won't program it to do
this.  Also, it bring yet another set of minor differences that have caused
problems in the SCSI drivers.  The main problem with the current 'A'-based
controllers is not max speed (which is actually fine), but overhead, especially
for small reads/writes.  Too many interrupts.

	As I understand it, the 'B' may not work as a drop-in.  I have one
around here, but haven't ever had the time to really dit down and find out
what it wants.

-- 
To be or not to be = 0xff
-
Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
From: tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Bus Standards
Date: 18 Dec 92 05:47:07 GMT
Organization: Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario

In article <BzFF7p.1o1@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:

>It took us 12 years to NEED a bus standard which offered better
>performance then MCA or EISA (both of which are respectable
>performers).

Need? MCA and EISA may offer respectable performance, but neither is
as ubiquitous as ISA. And for most people, the need is purely an
illusion.

>When we moved to a graphical system, we needed it.  When we needed it,
>we got it.  When we wanted pure processor power, we got it.  Now we
>want sound, and we are getting it.

Boy, those benevolent demigods answer your every wish and prayer.
Graphics and sound capabilities have been standard equipment on
most platforms for years. And if your processor isn't pure, you
get parity errors out the wazoo :).

>People here keep whining about the applications they want, but can't
>get (astronomy, typesetting, taxes) on the Amiga.  When are you going
>to get THOSE?

The 'people' I see complaining almost exclusively amount to one
individual. Of course we all want great applications, but everything
is ultimately a tradeoff.
From: ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu (Gregg Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A4000 or NOT
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:56:10 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
NNTP-Posting-Host: cie.uoregon.edu

In article <1h0i71INNp3t@uwm.edu> bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>
>Actually, I'm curious:  Did the PET have graphics, or was it text
>only?  I don't remember the PET.

   That was the first computer I ever used, about 1982. It was so cool! Tape
drive, keyboard and monitor all built into a single case, and the ability to
play this great dungeon game - I wish I could remember what it was called 
(someone mentioned "Rouge", but it's been so long, the name doesn't ring any
bells). Then there was a Dig-Dug clone...
   Anyway, as I recall, the PET was just text-based graphics which also made
use of the PETSCII characters (much - if not exactly - like those used on the
C64/128). I don't recall seeing any software which made use of bitmapped
graphics (I discovered the other hot machines of the time shortly thereafter,
like the Atari 400/800, Vic-20, Apple II, shortly thereafter. Then came the
C64, and my life changed forever. But that's another story...)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Giles (Dynamix, Inc.)                     Willy Beamish Development Team 
All opinions expressed are my own.     (MS-DOS CD-ROM, Sega-CD), Space Quest V
ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu, BIX: ggiles                 Author of DiskInfo, ZSound
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,rec.games.chess
From: uzun@crash.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Subject: UChess202.lha
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 18 Dec 92 12:13:31 GMT
Keywords: UChess


I uploaded UChess202.lha to hubcap.clemson.edu in /pub/amiga/incoming/games
and to valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu, and to amiga.physik.
This version plays the strongest chess, and fixes many bad time
control bugs in version 2.0.
It also adds support for 256 color screens on 15Khz monitors,
if you need it.  it still looks best on a 31khz monitor in
productivity mode, but it will fall back to a hires+lace
screen for 15Khz monitors if the multiscan.monitor is not
available.

-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uzun@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Gerald flipped through a PC rag, and...
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:57:18 GMT


I didn't find a single Amiga ad, so I tossed it in the trash.

(Kidding.)

-- Gerald
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc
From: miked@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Mike Danielsen)
Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 09:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.044414.2574@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>>>the Beholder and Ultima 6. When I run most of these games I can still
>>>use my computer for other things (such as downloading through a terminal
>>>program.)
>
>Give me a break!  Sure, I *can* run my games while under OS/2.
>
>But I don't.  Know why?  because it is slow!  Get real, there is often
>A REASON some games 'take over the machine'.

When I run games and download at the same time there is no apparent slowdown
in either task. Downloads don't slow down, the game runs just as fast.

>-- 
>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  


Mike Danielsen
From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advocacy? What do you want for the Amiga?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 00:50:30 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33
Keywords: Spam AGA Amiga

In article <1gsupqINN3st@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> dstuve@storm.CS.ORST.EDU (David Stuve) writes:
>Nice job folks.  I'm disappointed that .advocacy can't measure up to
>any of its potential.  Perhaps its time we had a comp.sys.amiga.flames
>group where all of our 10-year-old wannabies can have their little fits,
>and others can flame about breasts, guns, Perot, taxes, and MS-DOS machines.

>As a Christmas present to me and the rest of the developer community,
>can't we talk about what we like to use our Amigas for, and what
>software/hardware people would like to see for our favorite computer?

Absolutely, I agree.

Folks, I like to use my Amiga to make graphs comparing taxes to
relative breast sizes within geographical regions within the US.  I
like to download gifs of Perot in nursing positions, and play Duck
Hunt on my Amiga with a real shotgun.  (Is it real, or is it
VirtualMonger/BlazeReality?)  I also like to watch Little Computer
People throw fits over the MS-DOS machines the artists stuck in their
little houses, and the redneck IBM running OS/2 with a big nose
becoming president.

>Hopefully in the years to come, the users will be happy, developers will
>make money, and we'll all have fun.  That's what really matters, doesn't it?

I suppose.

Greg

--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(:   "Commodore has never proven to me, to my satisfaction, that      :)
(:    Marc Barrett is still alive."			       -Wubba :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: () :) :) :) Wubba, the Dark Angel :)
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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:25:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.044414.2574@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
> Give me a break!  Sure, I *can* run my games while under OS/2.

> But I don't.  Know why?  because it is slow!  Get real, there is often
> A REASON some games 'take over the machine'.

It's *slow*? A game designed to be playable on a 6MHz 286 is slow on
at *least* a 16 MHz 386? I've run games in the background while doing
stuff like downloads on my Amiga 1000 (7MHz 68000), and your OS/2 box
is much faster than that!
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   Oletko halannut suttasi tnn?
  'U`    
Tarjoilija, tm ateria el viel.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: iank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy)
Subject: Re:  OS/2 vs Win NT
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:24:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec16.161448.295@nmsu.edu> dleland@dante.nmsu.edu (LELAND) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.193022.16527@microsoft.com> iank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes:
>>
>>Let me make this very clear: MICROSOFT WILL NEVER AGAIN DEVELOP SOFTWARE FOR
>>THE AMIGA. Period.

>Hmmmmmmm. That's too bad. Did Lord God Gates mention why he didn't want to
>take these "risks?" Or did that come up out of that facetious little smile
>of his I find so annoying? 

Yes, he actually uttered the word "Amiga". At least he got it right and
didn't say something like "Omega" or "Amigo". It was even spelled right
on the slide. Amazing.

>AND THE BILL DID SAY: "This platform doesn't exist!" (chorus of angels, burst of 
>sunlight) AND IT WAS SO!!! AND THE BILL DID SAY: Windows is the most glorious 
>system that has ever or will ever exist!" AND THE MASSES SAID, "YEA, IT IS SO!"
>AND THE BILL DID SMILE AND CLIMB INTO HIS EXPENSIVE SPORTS CAR. AND THERE WAS
>MUCH REJOICING.
>
>yaaaaaaaaay.
>

Yea verily! And the Stock Splitteth yet again....
-- 
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Currently Amigaless soon to   | Eagle Talon TSI AWD/ABS/Turbo     |
|own A1200/100MB               | Iank@Microsoft.com                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R. Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: World of Commodore Toronto
Date: 15 Dec 1992 03:54:15 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1992Dec14.184116.13231@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> mlelstv@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
>The 3.0 program MultiView uses the datatype.library to display arbitrary
>files. WB 3.0 currently defines data types for ILBMs, AmigaGuide documents,
>and FTXT (not sure if the list is complete but further datatypes will follow).

You can bet your (hrrmph) they will follow.  And the minute some
DECENT documetation exists for it, I've got ideas for a few that I
want.  :)

Greg


--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(:   "Commodore has never proven to me, to my satisfaction, that      :)
(:    Marc Barrett is still alive."			       -Wubba :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: () :) :) :) Wubba, the Dark Angel :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: dleland@dante.nmsu.edu (LELAND)
Subject: Re:  OS/2 vs Win NT
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:18:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.235917.9548@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran) writes:
>
>Microsoft would be developing NT with the processor is mind, not the native
>platform. In this respect, the end-user still benefits, but not by virtue
>of any benevolence on the part of MS. But who's complaining? :).
>
Don't misunderstand me, I'm certainly not going to complain if any major piece
of software is written for the Amiga or can run on the Amiga. Getting NT on
this platform by one means or another is certainly ok with me. I'm simply
not clear on this processor vs native platform bit. The Mac and the Amiga have
the same procesor, but you can't run the same software. I'm confused; what
do you mean by this? 

Darrell Leland
dleland@nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: 22black@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Martin Black)
Subject: Re: Future Amiga chipsets
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:59:29 GMT

papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:

>We'll have OS/2 games when AGA games become plentiful.  OS/2 is brand
>new so it doesn't have many yet, but it won't be long before there are
>hundreds of OS/2 games.

Oh and there are sooo many windows games.  Not!  There are some, but for the
most part they are ms-dos.  And aga will become plentiful because of the 
easy ports.

>>acceptance of it.  Oh please lets not forget we are talking about home
>>computers here, to play games and such.  And with it being a risc cpu
>>they might be able to run win nt, and have lots of other apps.

>Let's put your last to statements together.  The 3do is great for
>playing games, but Microsoft might want to port it's server OS to it.

Microsoft will want to port their server over to anyone that can create
a running mach kernal.  Like making a mach kernal run is hard on risc cpus
but hey 3do is purely speculative for when and if it comes out.

Martin

-- 
I will never buy anything that Bill SATAN LIVES Gates' presently owns.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc
From: lindblad@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jarkko Lindblad)
Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Organization: University of Helsinki
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:49:20 GMT

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

> Why won't you guys figure out that there is a *reason* why OS/2 _can_
> take up a lot of room?

But we know the reason: poor programming :-)

-- 
Jarkko Lindblad         | sleep my friend and you will see
lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi | that dream is my reality
------------------------| they keep me locked up in this cage
          - MetallicA - | can't they see it's why my brain say rage
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:53:23 EST
From: Chris "Slothman" Stoy <CMS129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Merry Christmas


  I just want to wish everyone here on advocacy a Merry Christmas.

See you all next year!




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris "Slothman" Stoy |  DISCLAIMER: The views expressed within are not
cms129 at psuvm       |  mine but those of my pet hamster Gizmo. HE'S
cms129@psuvm.psu.edu  |  responsible for this! Blame him!        ^^^^
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: Future Amiga chipsets
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:23:11 GMT

In article <Bz84Aw.CGt@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>
>   How do you base this statement?  The IBM 8-bit XT bus offers good 
>performace with the 8086 and 8088 processors for which it was designed.

The 8086 is 16-bit and therefore doesn't sit easy on the XT bus.

 The
>16-bit ISA bus also offers good performance with the 80286 processors for
>which it was designed.  

It was never "designed" as such - that's one of the things wrong with it.  IBM
just tacked extra data, address and interrupt lines onto the XT bus.  It was a
hack to begin with, and to think that it's still in use almost nine years
later is a sad indictment of the state of the PC industry today.

>   Granted, the industry had to wait a while to get a bus standard that offers
>good performance with the Intel 32-bit processors, but the wait wasn't 12
>years.  The 80386 has only been available for less than four years.  (I forget
>exactly how long the 386 has been available)

Try more than six years and you'll be closer.  I have a review of the original
Compaq 386 from November 1986.  This machine, rather than anything from IBM,
defined the standard architecture for 386 systems so familiar today.  Local bus
is only now starting a (small) break from that.  Other important architectural
issues such as DMA channel design haven't changed.  They can't - all that
software relies on most things staying much the same.  Sure, you can speed
things up some, but that's really just tidying up around the edges.

>   Hardly.  In the PC industry, most of R&D is spent on software-oriented
>research and development.  The Amiga market seems must more infatuated with
>hot hardware and less oriented toward real computing applications.  This is
>possibly because 90% of Amiga owners are the types who have more credit than
>brains, and are continuously spending 80% of their family's after-tax incomes
>on Amiga hardware.

I've certainly spent more money on Amiga hardware than I like to think about.
Being single and moderately well-paid helps.  :-)

But, do you have any idea why we spend so much on these computers?  Why would
we if they were so terrible?  If we just had more dollars than sense, surely
there are lots of other things we could waste our incomes on?  So don't you
see that there's a special quality to the Amiga that attracts us, despite the
undeniably higher cost of being one of the few, the proud, the Amiga owners?
If you can't see that quality - sorry, but I can't help you.

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


-- 
David Meiklejohn (davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au)
 - PC's, Unix, and networks by day, Amigas by night...
Currently residing in Mareeba, Far North Queensland, Australia
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran)
Subject: Re: Dan flipped through an AmigaWorld, and:
Organization: Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:57:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.061400.28016@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu
(Stephenson Daniel A) writes:

>>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.

>I am not too postive. The Final Copy II shots looked adeqate, I suppose, mostly
>because you didn't see too much of the Workbench.

Actually, Final Copy is a customized hybrid of Workbench and NeXTStep. In many
commercial applications, the GUI has been rolled in house and many do not even
use the Workbench requesters and gadgets (ie. they're painted).

>Mostly, the scrollbars looked primitive, the scroll button was SO basic.

I'll agree with this one. We need more X and less 1.3.

>The sizing button on the top right, while I not understand them right off
>from just look at them (which I should have done, BTW) looked too big.

The gadgets in the top right aren't actually used for sizing, so I'm not
sure what you mean by this.

>Gosh, Amigans bash Windows for BIG BLOCKY buttons?! Sheesh!

The only time I recall anyone referring to Windows this way was Ian. I'm sure
most of us would prefer to see more highlighting and pen colours as well.
Until recently however, this wasn't available.

>There doesn't seem to be any commonality among windows.  In Windows, there
>is always the command-button thingee in the top left, and the super-inuitive
>max/min buttons on the top right.  The scrollbars in Windows look more
>professional, IMO.

You've touch on the most important element: commonality. It isn't the
underlying GUI that's the problem, but it's use. We have this debate amongst
ourselves all the time. Thankfully, with RTG and layout sensitivity,
standardization is inevitable.

>That, and those awful 4 colors!  Sheesh!  You Amigans REALLY don't know what
>you're missing with 4 colors.  Going back to a 4 color mode
>once used to 16 or more colors should be impossible, IMO.  Really, those WB
>screens looked like so much CGA.  Ack.

Again, you don't have to restrict yourself to 4 colours. 

>And the Workbench is suppose to be SO SOO GREAT!?  Ha!

Functionality wise, I'd say yes. Aesthetically, we're still at the infantile
stage. Don't forget, when 2.0 was released, it predated Windows. Since then,
user perceptions have changed dramatically. I personally find the Mac GUI
ugly as well, but find NeXTStep to be ideal with a limited palette.

Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:31488 comp.sys.amiga.hardware:21627
From: koren@fc.hp.com (Steve Koren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Power-up for AGA Machines! rumour.
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:19:08 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1.3 PL5

Neal Wickham (nwickham@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:

> BTW... I talked to some DEC sales people once who told me that the new
> Alphas were supposed to do about 2000 specmarks.  A 486 is around 10 
> specmarks. ...just to give some of the less technical people here an idea.

I very much doubt a single Alpha chip is anywhere even remotely close to
2000 specmarks.  Today's RISC CPU's tend to get somewhere between 0.5
and 1.8 specmarks per MHz.  Here are the specmark ratings for some
today's common RISC machines based on tests by an independent test
agency.  Also I threw 486 info in just for comparison.  Sorry, I don't
have any 68040 info.  If I were to guess, I'd say a 68040/33 MHz would
be something between 15 and 20 specmarks, but I could be way off base on
that.  Also, some of these machines listed below are more than a year
old now.

    CPU                    Speed      Specmarks   Specmarks/MHz
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    HP 9000/750            66 MHz     77          1.16
    HP 9000/730            66 MHz     74          1.12
    SGI Indigo R4000       50 MHz     69          1.38
    IBM RS/6000            42 MHz     69          1.64 (best spec/MHz)
    486/66                 66 MHz     25          0.38 (worst spec/MHz)
    DECstation 5000/240    40 MHz     24          0.60
    486/50                 50 MHz     22          0.44
    SGI Indigo R3000       33 MHz     20          0.61
    Sun Sparc 2            40 MHz     19          0.47
    486/33                 33 MHz     14          0.42
    486/25                 25 MHz     10          0.40

I could perhaps believe that a new Alpha machine could get close to 200
Specmarks (ie, 10X less than your number).  There are a number of other
announced machines now from HP, Dec, and IBM which make the above
numbers (77 specmarks) look slow.  But I cannot believe 2000 specmarks.
Given what seems to be state of the art today, 2000 specmarks would
require either a 1200 MHz CPU, which is clearly not possible, or
something like 20 parallel instruction execution units on one chip,
which I also can't see happening just due to technology limitations.

I'd believe 200, but not 2000.  Still, 200 is very, very fast.  It'll
make your 68040 seem like an 8086 in comparison :-)

  - steve