From: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
Subject: Re: PC (OS/2) / Amiga debate -- hopefully a rational debate, an I an ideali
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:29:49 GMT
Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc.

In article <1992Sep3.153516.42760@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <BtxoCu.In4@starnine.com>, mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug27.161036.384@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>>In article <BtM61A.Bs@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>>>
>>>OS/2 itself is solid.  There are bugs in the WPS, but the WPS is brand new
>>>software -- and very sophisticated software at that.
>> 
>> That's why it has bugs?  Because it's s-o-o-o sophisticated?
>
>As sophistication goes up, so does the chance of bugs.  Are you rational
>enough to see this?

Sure, so I can tell how sophisticated my OS/2 program is by how
many bugs it has.  Okay.

>>>>>Don't compare OS/2 2.0 to AmigaDOS -- AmigaDOS
>>>>>isn't even close in terms of functionality,
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is... pre-emptive multitasking, GUI based system.  Probably
>>>>better than OS/2 in real-time response.  Addresses 1.8 GIG of memory.
>>>>Multi-media capable... make that natural.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It still isn't even close to OS/2 in terms of functionality.
>> 
>> Sure Jerry, you can just stand there and repeat it over and over...
>
>O.K.  Device independent graphics,

In the works.

>virtual memory,

Yup , the amiga doesn't have that.  Does OS/2 AUTO-CONFIGURE?

>ability to run a 
>virtual machine running MS-DOS, DR-DOS, or most any real mode operating
>system,

How about Mac software?  

>compatible with 28,000 DOS apps, 4-5,000 Windows apps,

<yawn>
If this is your bag... get the Bridgeboard or any of a multitude
of MSDOS emulators, many of which multitask on the Workbench.

>and 
>1-2,000 OS/2 apps (numbers are approximate) plus anyting that runs under
>a real mode operating system booted in a virtual machine, every process
>runs in its own memory address space--protects the apps from each other,
>30 day money back guarantee, etc.  I could go on.

You've stated maybe 3 facilities that OS/2 has over the Amiga...
...as I said above, AUTO-CONFIGURATION as well REAL-TIME OS
are two on the Amiga's side that OS/2 doesn't support...
I'm sure I could come up with more (like virtual screens),
but the point is that
the Amiga is VERY comparable to OS/2 and superior in some
respects.


>>>How much for one of those BridgeBoards?  What's on it, a 286?  If you think
>>>a BridgeBoard is comparable to having a PC, you're sadly mistaken.
>> 
>> I know... with the 386 BB from C=, you also have the AMiga!
>> You're right!  A PC can't compare!
>> 
>
>Again, how much for a 386 BB?

 don't know, probably about the same or more as a clone, but like
 I said...you end up with the Amiga, too!  (YOU can't run a video
 toaster, genlocking, Mac emulation...in your Intel box.)

>Are they shipping?  What chip is on it?

Far as I know, yes.  (not in the market for Intel-based crap)
And I ststed above 386 BB.  Do you know what 386 means?

>A dx, sx, 20mHz, etc.?  

I believe it's an SX at 20 MHz, but like I said, I could care less
about PC-compatible junk so I'm not sure.

>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah.  I have both 2.04 AND 1.3 installed on my hard disk in less than
>>>>8 meg (my 2.04 partition is 6 meg and has 3 meg free).
>>>>
>>>>From what I understand, OS/2 needs something over 30 meg, minimum?
>>>>'Zat right?
>>>>
>>>
>>>'Zat's wrong.
>> 
>> Well, Jerry, what's the right number? 28Meg? 25Meg?  Decline to comment?
>
>It is wrong.  It can take up 17 megs for just OS/2 compatibility.  At 
>work, with OS/2 fully installed, it takes 27 megs.

Then hell, I was just a little high.  27 Megs, eh?  What were you
saying about the number of bugs as OS/2 software gets more
"sophisticated"?

>Anyway, you are 
>getting two operating systems, and an operating environment (Windows),
>plus Adobe Type Manager 2.0.  You are also getting more features.  If 
>you don't want the features, you can nix them off your hard disk.

As I said, MSDOS & WIndows (gag) ARE available on the Amiga with both
hardware & software emulators.  Scaleable fonts are in AmigaOS 2.0.
And I haven't "nix"ed any system software off my hard disk yet (but
I can see why it's common practice with OS/2...lower the incidence
of "sophisticated" software).

>
>> 
>>>No video support out of the box?!  What box?
>>>Find me a clone vendor that doeesn't sell complete systems.
>> 
>> Yeah.  All different.  Show me 2 vendors that sell the SAME system?
>
>Gateway, High Definition, Acma, and hundreds of others will sell you
>the same system configuration.  They may have peripherals made by 
>different companies, but they operate the same.

Yeah, sure.  The SAME system, just different.

>If you want to be
>locked into just a few choices and a few prices for a computer, fine.

If the system is designed right, you don't NEED that many choices!

>I prefer competition to drive the price down.  And please don't
>spout off about incompatibilities, because I have had no problems.

No.  MOST of the time the crap works.  It's the HOOPS you
have to jump through to get it in that state.  Make sure them
memory map is right, not tromping on another IRQ, ... it ain't
easy gettin' that ol' Intel sh** to cooperate!

I've been "guessing" at setting up an Ethernet card and rebooted
and the display turned to 1/2 it's normal height!  (Is THAT why
they call it OS/2?)

>
>> 
>>>
>>>Kludged in?!  You mean, kind of like your built-in flicker-fixer, Mike?
>> 
>> No, I don't mean factory-installed, present-in-every-system features.
>> BTW, the interlace of the AMiga is a GOOD THING.  It's one of the
>> reasons the Amiga is so much better at video that Intel trash.
>> (Seen Pournelle's latest column?  Even HE admits how superior
>> the Amiga is for creating multi-media!).
>> 
>> The fact that some systems flicker simply means their owners
>> can have high-quality tools at less cost.  MY system is
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> rock-solid.  Just like Amiga VS. PC prices...you get what
>> you pay for!
>
>What?  You totally lost me.  Interlace is good?  You like going blind?

Yes, interlace is good.  Ever heard of NTSC?  It permits genlocking the
CPU to a video signal...the capability that makes the Toaster
possible on the Amiga and IMPOSSIBLE on either Macs OR PCs.

And there's a lot you can do about the flicker... right up to
eliminating the flicker entirely.

>(And by the way, Pournelle is no authority on anyting--my opinion as
>well as the opinion of many others (source:  postings on usenet))

Well, HIS WRITING are a normal column in BYTE... yours are on
usenet.  But I know what you mean... only recently han MY opinion
of him improved.

>
>So flickering is a sign of high quality?  Sure it means low cost, but
>high quality?  What are you saying?  

I'm saying that your PC is crap for video... that to do decent
video, you'll have to pump mucho bucks into it.

>
>My system's display is flicker free because it is noninterlaced.  
>1024x768x256 colors at 70 Hz refresh rate.  That is higher quality
>than a flickering 43 Hz interlaced display.  

As I said, not for video... it is useless.  My 1950 Multiscan
provides a rock-solid display (zero-flicker) AND my Amiga gives
great video.

>
>Concerning prices.  PC's are not lower in price because they lack
>quality.  They are lower in price due to market competition.  
>Commodore does not have to worry about that.  They can set their
>prices at whatever they want.
>
>> 
>> Didn't have much to say about PC's until I started working with them
>> about a year ago.  Since then... I have seen no elegance...nothing
>> of "cool design"...absolutely NOTHING to endear me to the machine in
>> any way.  In fact, quite the opposite (obviously).  It reminds me
>> of that Chevy Vega I had years ago... I feel damn lucky when I get it
>> to do what I want!
>> 
>> 8-character filenames & single-letter drives...tsk, tsk.
>> 
>> Face it... they're garbage!
>
>You have not make the distintion between hardware and software.
>8 character filenames are gone in OS/2.

What IS the limit in OS/2?

>It is not a limit of
>the hardware.  Before you bash PC's, you should:
>
>1)  Make sure you know what you're talking about or your posts will
>    degenerate into threads of correction after correction.
>    I'm not saying you don't entirely know what you are talking
>    about, just there are some things that are in error.

What bogus information have I conveyed?  When I'm guessing, I
say so.

>
>2)  Be a bit more rational.  Lose the emotion bit.  Then you won't
>    start a flame thread, instead you'll start an informative thread
>    about the differences between Amigas and PC's.

There are some topics I like being emotional about.  Dealing with
all this IBM-smugness and self-serving OS2/0-is-god nonsense is
one of them.  Believe me.  The "emotionality" is not by accident.

>
>3)  If you have to bash the PC, at least specify if you are bashing
>    the hardware aspect or the software aspect.

Why?  What difference does it make?  It's not obvious without
putting out HARDWARE & SOFTWARE signs everywhere?

Don't forget... YOU are posting to .advocacy!

OK... Try this...

The original PC/MSDOS was, pure and simple, an inferior machine.
The severe machine limitations (640K, no multitasking, etc.) were
so blatent that IBM could only have planned those bits of obsolescence.

Now it has been many years since it's introduction, and the machine
HAS gotten more powerful.  It has improved in graphics (couldn't
get any worse!), sound capabilities, and faster CPU's.  (Although
the original hardware is now useless, no?).

But THAT is where the significant improvements end, IMHO.  Except for
CPUs & their speed, the hardware dis not "grow up" in a standard way,
but by a multitude of third-party-products, much of it incompatible.
Or unsupported.  Some new sound board comes out... no software uses it.

The architecture of the hardware is virtually unchanged... still all the
configuration headaches of early computers.  Installing, changing,
configuring hardware is a pain...if it's lessened in complexity at
all, it's due to the toil of a third-party-developer who designed
his stuff to be friendlier...NOT by the OS giving any help here.

MSDOS is a complete joke....doesn't even deserve discussion
in this arena.  Windows on top of MSDOS... same story.  Same
round-robin multitasking as on the mac.

OS/2 does fix a lot.  It provides true multitasking (even if it
isn't real-time).  It IS much better than the older systems, but
27 Meg?  But all in all, it probably has a place in the realm of
modern-day, "sophisticated" OS's (even if it IS limited to
single-letter drive specs), if Windows doesn't knock it out
of the marketplace (is OS/2 compatible with Win3.1 stuff?...
is it endangered by Win/NT?).

But it's patently ridiculous that AmigaOS is not "comparable
in functionality" to OS/2.  That term doesn't imply better or worse,
it doesn't say more powerful or less...just comparable.  It is
CERTAINLY more comparable that the piece of mucus MSDOS and
Windows abortion that OS/2 is related to.