HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Subject: Re: 040 and 486 and nap42487 knows nothing about CPUs.
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:33:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.205025.21636@ux.acs.umn.edu> har@ux.acs.umn.edu (--SeebS--) writes:
>
>Face it - no one has yet spoken up who has programmed both chips in
>assembly and who does not feel that Intel is a total kludge. I know
>that the computer science department at my old school was full of people
>who all "grew up" programming the 80x86's. According to your theory, they

	I have been programming both chips for quite a while, and really
find that neither is THAT much more enjoyable than the other.

	The only real BIG problem I've found with the Intel Chips is the
lack of registers.  However, apart from that, the instruction set is quite
rich and useful.  Obviously, the 68040's 27 addressing modes are more numerous
and more functional, but that really doesn't make it a better chip.

	The old babbling about the Segments in the PC is somewhat useless these
days... The 386 chips and new assemblers have pretty much made assembly 
programming on the PC quite similar to the .code .data stuff I've seen and
the old MASM segment directive nightmares are pretty much gone...

	The 040 is most likely a much better CISC chip, but the Intel 386+
chips are quite functional and not that bad to program at all...


-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         C program run.  Run  
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA          Program run! PLEASE!
Ever wonder how Worf got to be Security Officer on the Enterprise when the 
Capt gets kidnapped from the bridge every two episodes and Troy Beats him up?
From: kdarling@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video Machine
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:52:21 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

cstuckless@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>> "Video Machine", an addon video editing, titling and special effects board.
>> The system is based on a new Philips video controller chip.  Other quotes:
>> 
>> The Video Machine is able to cut and mix live video.  It requires no extra
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> hardware such as TBCs or editing decks.  The video output and both inputs
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   I'd be weary of any video switcher/effects generator that claims it 
>doesn't need a stable source (a time base corrected signal). I'd like 
>to know who wrote the article in "Newsbytes" - was it a reviewer or 
>the company who makes it?

The opening quote was Newsbytes report of COMDEX.  All the other quotes
were from a previous report that was more or less a company news release.

Apparently it has TBCs onboard.

kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams)
Subject: Re: Jerry "knows" 486's faster than 68040.
Organization: James Cook University, North Queensland
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 01:45:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.155403.1226@nic.unh.edu> pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.165843.1@cc.helsinki.fi> lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>
>>Wrong Jerry.
>>Do not belive in benchmarks so blindly. Benchmarks are too dependent on other
>>things (compilers, external caches etc.).
>
>So are your comparisons below (i.e. dependent on lots of factors).
>
>>Why don't we look at some other things:
>>
>>68040 instrucions are in average perhaps 30-50% faster than equivalent 486
>>instrcutions while instruction set on both is comparable.
>
>Are you saying that you can look at any given 486 instruction, and the
>comparable '040 instruction is 30-50% faster? (I don't have any 486
>specs on hand, so I can't say for sure).  Most comparisons I've seen
>show a fairly even split between the '040 and '486 in speed of various
>integer instructions.
>

Not this argument again.  The 040 is faster in integer than the 486.
Any benchmark that tells you otherwise is purely based on compiler/OS
overhead differences.  Why do people follow-up and say they haven't
seen the instruction timings but think that the 486 is faster?

I have seen the timings and posted them here a couple of months ago.  The
040 is faster on almost every instruction, with only a few rarely
used instructions being faster on the 486.  

The 040 also has a better cache design, although the 486 does do
some special tricks on its unified cache to try and make up some of
the disadvantages of the unified cache (mainly burst reads).

-- 
Colin Adams         Honours Student - James Cook University of North Queensland
Shadowplay Software PO Box. 1201, Aitkenvale, 4814.  Townsville.  Australia.
I've seen you smile, but I've never really heard you laugh.  So who is rich
and who is poor I cannot say. - The Smiths
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: 040 and 486
Keywords: 68040,80486,486,040,benchmarks
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:26:26 GMT

Iknow the 040 is faster at floating point than the 486, but it is not 3 times as fast as some claimed. These tests showed otherwise. They show that a 50 MHz 
486 is faster than a 25 MHz 040 at floating point. (yes the 50 MHz will go
twice as fast as the 25 MHz, before anyone posts some junk about the comparison
being done with a 25 MHz chip, not a 50). They show that the two chips are the
same at integer. This is what I have been saying, and what other tests have been saying. And these tests are CPU tests, not I/O bound tests. The point was
to compare the CPU's.

Nish Patel   nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls)
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:00:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.170711.9183@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls) writes:
>>>...if you look at the instruction sets of the two, you will see
>>>the Motorola chip is in a very sorry state.
>>
>>If it is in such a sorry state, then why does my A3000 consistently perform
>>better than a comparably equipped 386-25 PC clone?  You say the Motorola
>>CPU sucks and the Amiga chipset sucks, yet the Intel based machine can not
>>even hope to compete...
>>
>
>Well, if the Intel-based machine cannot even hope to compete, then why does
>*my* 386 clone consistently perform better than a comparably equipped A3000?
>Get the drift, Skip?  Your casual claim of Amiga superiority doesn't mean
>squat without proof.

Okay, here is a little proof for you.  I can go around the corner and start
an ftp transfer from the PC to a Sun, walk back to my A3000, start a transfer
of the same file, see that it is finished, walk back to the PC, and the PC is
still doing the transfer.  The A3000 is on the same subnet as the PC and both
are using 16bit Ethernet cards.

I can compile the C source to a fractal generator on both machines, with the
necessary changes for the different graphics functions, and the A3000 will 
not only compile the code in less time, the fractal is also generated in a 
fraction of the time.  Both machines are using 16 color 640x480 screens and
the only graphics calls (inside the main loop) are to set the color and draw
a pixel.

Windows 3.x on the PC only makes things worse (I would love to try out OS/2,
but no one here wants to try it until it is more commmonplace), but it is
the only way that the PC can "multitask".  I have tried to do the same things
under Windows that I do on my Amiga everyday, but I have had little luck.  If
I start a telnet session on the PC, it will usually work, but the second 
session practically locks the machine up.  So far the only thing that seems
to work well under Windows are the games.

There is now a modplayer for the PC, but it is practically useless.  All it
seems to do is make scratchy beeps and whistles.  I can barely even hear the
cry from Mrs. Fletcher when she has fallen and can't get up.

I don't even try to play games on the PC anymore.

If I need to edit a file, I will use emacs on my Amiga or a UNIX box.  I do
not have a need for a spreadsheet (although I teach a bunch of accounting
majors how to use 123), a database, a desktop publishing program, or any
sort of CAD software.  There may be a time when I do need these applications
and I will either buy a PC or maybe just kill myself.  :-)

But the PC is better for one thing:

                        PORNOGRAPHIC GIFS!!!!!!!  :-)

>Jerry J. Shekhel


Skip Sauls                     //    Graduate Student & Instructor
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu    \X/     CS Department, University of Mississippi 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls)
Subject: Re: 040 and 486_ (bunch O' Kaka anyway)
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:12:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.190041.16557@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:

<compiler bashing  deleted>

>I think the best thing to do would be to use UNIX SVR4 and Gnu C on both
>machines (with similar RAM) to see which produces faster results.  This would
>give a reasonable overall CPU performance estimate.

Sounds fair enough.  Why don't we ask Rob H. (frequent comp.unix.amiga poster)
to perform the tests?  He has an A3000UX, uses a 386 with SVR4 and would
probably run them if we asked nicely.  What sort of tests should be run?

Skip Sauls                     //    Graduate Student & Instructor
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu    \X/     CS Department, University of Mississippi 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:22:02 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>ggg@kepler.unh.edu (Gregory G Greene) writes:
>>>>    And look at the speed comparisons of a A3000 w/68040 to a 486.. The 40
>>>> wins.. But as stated above, with the Amiga, its not JUST the processor that
>>>> does all the work...
>>>
>>>	Plus the 486 system is a heck of a lot less expensive then an 040
>>>  based A3000. 
>>
>>If you are going to get an 040 board, you might as well get an A2000.  This
>>is much cheaper, plus it can use a Video Toaster.
>>
>
>The A2000 only has a Zorro II bus, which makes the A3000 more worthwhile.

Yes, but is not Zorro II the equivalent of ISA, and Zorro III the equivalent
of EISA, roughly speaking?  There is a price difference between ISA and EISA
486 systems I believe.  Of course, the A3000 is a better machine than the
A2000, but, for some reason, we are comparing Amigas to Intel PCs, not Amigas
to Amigas.

-- Gerald
From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  SCSI stuff
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:24:41 GMT
Organization: Society to Stamp Out Bogus Organizations

In article <root.019x@rkamiga.UUCP> root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Vaporware floppy drives
SCSI floppy drives are not vaporware.  Teac, and others make 1.44/2.88 Mbyte
SCSI floppies, and Amiga owners (not me, though) have had them for at least
six months to a year.  The 20 Mbyte flopticals apparently are shipping too,
at least in the last month or two.
--
bruce@zuhause.mn.org
Youth is wasted on the young.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: sjc28473@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven Joseph Chmura)
Subject: Re: EISA vs. ZorroIII
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:15:46 GMT

sctconno@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Dave Connors) writes:

>nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:

>>mhw42412@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Hwa Wu) writes:

>>>Hi,
>>>	If I'm not mistaken, EISA runs at about 8 Mhz.  MCA (IBM's 32 bit
>>>architecture) runs at about 1/2 the speed of the cpu.  So a 33 Mhz 486
>>>would have 16.5 Mhz slots ( I could be completely and utterly wrong ).
>>>	So the only way a PC could get 33 Mhz, 32-bit wide busses is to
>>>get an actual IBM PS/2 with a 66 Mhz processor.
>>>.

>>You are mistaken.
>>Where did you get these numbers?

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

>It's very rarely that I meet someone who insights so my damned anoyance in
>me. NiSHITh, unless you've got something productive to so, go away and play
     ^^^^^^^
This is rude and racist.  If you want to call him dumb undergrad without
a clue as to the amiga's performance or for that matter life, go right
ahead.  But attacking his NAME is aweful.  
>wordprocessors on your IBM.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
And you can go play Shadow of the Beast on your amiga.


-- 
							Steven Chmura
							"4-weeks till..	
							MD-2-B

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: ggg@kepler.unh.edu (Gregory G Greene)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:19:30 GMT

>As to getting a 486 or the A3000...   You really have to look at what you
>are getting.  In the case of the A3000, your machine will be useful to you
>for years.  In the case of the 486, it will be obsolete as soon as the 586
>comes out.  Sorry, OS/2 v3 doesn't work on anything less than the 586.

	I don't think IBM would do that. Even if they did though, by the time
 OS/2 v3 is ready for shipment, 586's will be a dime a dozen.

							G.Greene


>Mike Schwartz
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: w8ts@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (M Crevatin AMIGA #1)
Subject: Re: beer and the amiga
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.1076.18300@dosgate> "thomas napier" <thomas.napier@canrem.com> writes:

-> Okay, now that I have your attention, I would like to know what brands of
-> beer are the favorites among comp.sys.amiga.advocacy readers.  Over the
-> last year or so I have noticed several posters remarking that they were
-> drunk or were in the process of getting drunk.  Some talked about beer,
-> others did not mention the beverage.  I seem to recall Dave Haynie stating
-> his love of beer, and I would like to buy him a case or two in thanks for
-> the awesome A3000 (and hopefully even better Amigas in the future).
-> 
-> This may seem like an odd topic, but it is about as relevant to the Amiga
-> as some of the other stuff discussed here.  Personally, I would rather
-> have a pint of bitter from a British pub than any other beer, but in this
-> hick state I would be lucky to find anything remotely British.  As a
-> student I tend to buy beer based on price, so I rarely drink any of the
-> imports.  My favorite American beer is Coors Light, followed by Miller
-> Genuine Draft Light, Bud Light, and Miller Light.

>Well here's the view of a typical Canadian Beer Drinker.
> 
>Q:  Why is American beer like making love in a canoe?
>
>A: Because its F&%#@ng close to water...
> 
I tend to agree with my friend there, american beer SUCKS!!  I'm partial
to Moosehead Premium Dry, which I understand is available in the
state...try it, and see waht *REAL* beer is  :^)

>
>---
>  AME 1.07  MS-DOS 5.1372 (C) User-Hostile Systems Inc.
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

**************************************************************
*              / / /  Only     |  A drunk man's words are    *
*             / / /   AMIGA    |  a sober man's thoughts     *
*            / / /    makes    |         -from experience    *
*      \ \ \/ / /     it all   |-----------------------------*
*       \ \/ / /      possible |   Mirko Crevatin            *             
*        \/ / /                | w8ts@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca *  
*                              | University of New Brunswick *
*------------------------------|       Computer Science      *
*                              | Fredericton, New Brunswick  *
*    This space for rent!!     |           CANADA            *
* 			       | Phone: (506)451-9500        *
**************************************************************
From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: New .advocacy groups
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:21:38 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics

In article <988tz#d@rpi.edu> borres@aix.rpi.edu (Steven D. Borrelli) writes:
>Folks, c.s.a.advocacy is no longer alone. The Next people have just voted
>in favor of a comp.sys.next.advocacy (among other groups). In addition, 
>there is talk about an os2.advocacy group. 


The NeXT group was formed mainly to deal with Neuron, the OD and ND, and the
Mac vs. NeXT debates! The OS/2 one will concentrate on Windows() vs. OS/2.
Neither will be as interesting as this group.

Philip McDunnough
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
From: dano@usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:48:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: srl01.dano.702841726
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

aissmith@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Doug Smith) writes:

>kdarling@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:

>>Most Amiga owners here are mature, intelligent people... and can give
>>decent arguments without bashing someone.  Try it, you might like it.

>I used to do that often - quite often - too often in fact.  To be brutally
>honest, there is a stark difference between Amiga and IBM owners.  Amiga
>owners tend to look into things and don't follow blindly (thats probably
>why they own Amigas over IBMs) whilst IBM owners tend to be geeky people
>who just follow the croud.  I have *NEVER* seen an IBM owner offer
>truthful facts in an argument against Amigas.  Its either lies (stretched

Me? What about me?

>truths mostly) or plain insults.  They just don't listen to anything
>rational/sensible you have to say.  There are many people I know who have
>also derived this same conclusion independantly.  They'll back me up.
>Anyway, I'm so used to their behaviour that when I see something *SO*
>rediculious and off-the-mark as that, I lash out - and it usually works. ;-)

I resent your stereotypifying (sp?) all IBM owners like that.  sure
there are some, but I think, for example, Iskander Taib from the
Christmas Break, Jerry Sheckel and I are reasonably well-informed in our
posts.  

>>It's all up to you as to how you wish to be viewed.

I know that.               

-Dan
.

>As I said - I gave up on rational debate long ago - I now handle the abuse 
>department.  It almost works.

>See ya,
>Doug.
>>kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
--
Daniel Anthony Stephenson dano@nasa15.usl.edu das9674@usl.edu 
"I'm a staunch Independant.  Every time I think I am a Republican, they
 do something greedy, and every time I think I am a Democrat, to go and
do someting stupid." - Jay Leno from _60 Minutes_ interview 3/15/1992
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 040 and 486 and nap42487 knows nothing about CPUs.
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:00:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: templar.jbickers.05y9
 <1992Apr13.013203.13300@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> 
 <1992Apr13.152041.13375@ctr.columbia.edu> 
 <1992Apr13.165635.21886@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <dano.703202048@srl01.cacs.usl.edu><1992Apr15.064353.23389@public.sub.org>
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG

Quoted from <1992Apr15.064353.23389@public.sub.org> by peterk@public.sub.org (Peter Kittel):
> dano@usl.edu (Dan Stephenson) writes:

> That's not my experience. The first microprocessor I programmed in assembly
> was the 8085 from Intel. I always struggled with it and shook my head why

> And then I started with the 6502. BIG difference, clean, nearly orthogonal,
> compact and clearly structured. I really fell in love with it. And this all

    Kind of like discovering C after Pascal, eh?

> Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to  \\  Only my personal opinions... 
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.        jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***    "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk    ***
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:12332 comp.sys.amiga.games:6790 comp.sys.amiga.misc:8355 comp.sys.amiga.multimedia:806 comp.sys.amiga.graphics:3584 comp.sys.amiga.hardware:8653
From: dano@usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:31:35 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

tarquin@athena.mit.edu (Robert P Poole) writes:


>Nish Patel [nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu] writes some rather amusing things:

>But the funniest thing so far is the claim that OS/2 2.0 is a "fast" OS, and
>superior to Workbench...

Well, basing my opinion on what I have heard so far about OS/2 2.0 and
WorkBench, I do see why that is 'funny', much less untrue (OS/2 2.0
being superior).  OS/2 2.0 was only recently released-it is doubtful you
have think experience with both the Amiga WB _and_ OS/2 2.0.

>Well...  I have a friend who worked for IBM in an internship program (yes, this
>`friend' is real, not a figment of my imagination -- name is withheld for
>obvious reasons) who owns an Amiga 3000 and also was involved in the OS/2 2.0
>project.  (No, IBM did not like the fact that he kept bringing his A3000 into
>work to show it off... but anyway...)  In his words, "OS/2 2.0 is nice, but
>it's not an Amiga."  He claims that OS/2 2.0 is a "real" OS, but slow compared
>to the Amiga.  He blames much of the performance loss on the fact that the IBM
>architecture lacks the custom chipset that the Amiga has, and various other
>reasons.  Most importantly, there are key areas where the Amiga clearly
>outshines an IBM or clone machine running OS/2, no question about it.  OS/2
>multimedia is clearly in its infancy at best...

That custom chipset is the same as in 1985, and while good, isn't
unique.  There are good IBM--type SVGA cards out there that are
excellent. 
Being slow isn't an objective thing always.  Run OS/2 2.0 on a 486 with
a good (and often standard) graphics card,and then compare.  See? Or run
OS/2 2.0 on a 16 mHz 386SX and ten compare to the ADOS on an A3000. See?
Totally different results.

>Bah, is this even worth my aggravation?  Probably not...

Sure it is!

_Dan
.

>--
>Robert P. Poole                       tarquin@athena.mit.edu
>46 Massachusetts Avenue               MIT Course VIII
>311C Bexley Hall                      "I feel like a lost sock in the
>Cambridge, MA  02139                   laundromat of oblivion."
--
Daniel Anthony Stephenson dano@nasa15.usl.edu das9674@usl.edu 
"I'm a staunch Independant.  Every time I think I am a Republican, they
 do something greedy, and every time I think I am a Democrat, to go and
do someting stupid." - Jay Leno from _60 Minutes_ interview 3/15/1992