HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Archimedes?
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:43:57 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <1992Apr8.200422.1068@seas.gwu.edu> gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:

>>Nah, a powerful Arc is not expensive at all. Compare the new Arc 5000 to the
>>Amiga 3000 - 18 mips versus 9 mips, and <UK2000 versus >UK3000 for a similar
>>setup. 

>Wow, this sounds good.

Yes, it is good...

>What software is available for the Arc?

You have GOT to be joking! Arc? Software? Hahahahah... ;-))

No, seriously, there isn't a vast array of software available like on the
Amiga. I have seen a nice DTP package, and a nice piece of comms software, and
for most things, you will be able to get an application to do it, but you won't
have a massive choice. The user-base is quite small, but it is growing 
rapidly.

However, it is apparently a very nice machine to program. The RISC instruction
set is nice to use, and it's fast, and there's Basic and Assembler *built-in*
to the ROM (along with almost everything else, so there's very little disk-
swopping if you have no HD).

>Where can one be purchased?

The UK. It's not available overseas. You'd have to buy one mail-order. The
cheapest system (around 5 mips) is 600 UK pounds (say $830). It's in an
A500-style box, 1Mb RAM, no HD. From then on, they get better. The models
appear to closely parallel the Amiga range, eg. the A440 is like the Amiga
2000 (expandable), the A540 is like the Amiga 3000 (FAST!), and then there's
the budget A5000 which is just as fast, only cheaper...

>Are there any magazines for the system?

Yup. Acorn User and some other one I can't remember...

(Basically, I have never heard of it.)

You and millions of other people! :-)  However, it *is* becoming more
common now. The problem appears to be the initial pricetag; you can't pick
up one for the same price as an Amiga 500 (it's about twice the price), but
the base machines DO have a lot of horsepower. You may have seen my compression
speed tests I ran a while back - the results from the newest A5000 versus my
40Mhz '030-based A2000 (which I hope to have next week) will be posted here if
there's interest.

>-- Gerald

Barry.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video Machine - Toaster Sales Killer?
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:42:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.3ksjs4_
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <kdarling.702859259@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> kdarling@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:

>The Video Machine is able to cut and mix live video.  It requires no extra
>hardware such as TBCs or editing decks.


How does it do this? ...by converting the video signals to digital/analog
format (like DCTV) before editing and then converting it back afterward?

What about animation?  If this thing will do animation in  3 million
colors off a hard drive like DCTV will, I'd say that the Amiga/Toaster
was history. 
  
There is supposed to be some other DTV stuff coming out for Amiga such
as some system that works off a lazer disk which allows for full digital
manipulation of video.  ...but who knows what else will come out for PCs
and Macs.

I think we can all count on a Toaster price drop eh.  :)



                                        NCW
From: Mike_Whalen@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Mike Whalen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: The TRUE Amiga d00d!
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:44:12 GMT
Organization: The Amiga GateWay BBS * New Orleans, La.


  I would like to tell all of you why I like the Amiga.

  Ahem..

  BECAUSE NONE OF YOU DO! HAHAHA HEHEHE HOHOH None of you like the Amiga..
and it's ALL your fault.. therefore I like it. SO there.. phphtttt.! It's
christmas.. BA BA BA!

  After this message was written, Mr. Whalen was carted off with men
wearing white suits.... hmmmm...

  SO remember, if you like the Amiga good. But do it for a reason.

Huh?


-- Via DLG Pro v0.991

Yet another fine quality message from.. Mike Whalen Brand Message Prod.
If you like it.. you like it.. if not... FNORD!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet:                  Mike_Whalen@agwbbs.new-orleans.la.us
UUCP:                             rex!agwbbs!Mike_Whalen
                                 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown)
Subject: The Mindlight Is QOOL
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:24:00 GMT


I'd just like to mention the reasons I keep my Amiga around.  I'm not much
into games anymore, and the only applications I use on it are a terminal
program and an editor to look up recipes.  But what I really like about my
Amiga is my Visual Aurals Mindlight.  People love and are amazed by this
stupid thing.  Very frequently I get asked if it is available for any other
computer.  Too bad it isn't available for the Amiga anymore.

So there you have it.  Deluxe Lavalamp.  I do use the X-Specs for similar
effects, but none are as cool as the Mindlight.  Once I get the laser galvos
working via the Amiga, I won't need to visit clubs with lame effects anymore.
:-)
-- 
     James Brown, Mark Hosler, Al Jourgenson.  Coincidence or conspiracy?

DISCLAIMER: My writings have NOTHING to do with my employer.  Keep it that way.
Pete Ashdown  pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com  ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: iank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy)
Subject: Re: *** ULTIMATE BASHING for PeeCee Users
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:07:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: comp

In article <SUOPANKI.92Apr4182100@stekt1.oulu.fi> suopanki@stekt.oulu.fi writes:
>>>>>> On 3 Apr 92 11:07:53 GMT, jayson@tbag.UUCP (Jayson Phillips) said:
>
>Jayson> And a fast Mandlebrot program
>Jayson> that uses the 387 takes 45 min to generate the basic screen in 320x200?
>Jayson> My A3000 does this in 5 sec.  IBM/MSDOS/INTEL are greatly over rated.
> 
>Bullshit.
>Fractint for Windows generates the basic 800x600 screen in 45
>seconds in  my 386sx w/o 387.

Bravo! I was waiting for somebody to say that! I'm a Amiga 
nut, lunatic fanatic. But the above statement about a
PC taking 45 minutes to do the BIG M-SET was total
BS. I used fractint/DOS on a 386/16 and it did a 
320x200 (256 color) in about 10 seconds. Fractint
kicks butt.

If only there was an Amiga version, after all the source
is available.

We Amiga users bitch about ignorant DOS/MAC/NeXT users and
then weenies like the clueless twit above chimes in. Sheesh!
I guess the lesson here is:

Clueless ignorance is not platform specific.

< The rest of this post is drivel... hit "n" now to avoid it >

Ian "Bravely working in the land of Windows, irritating co-workers
and pissing off engineers with new and intresting bugs!" Kennedy,
software tester of DOOM. 

PS. A guy just was hired into my team who's an Amiga user. One
by one we'll take over the DOS world from the inside! HAHAHAHAHA.

Enough! It's late.
>
>-Heikki


-- 
/* It's not a cruise... It's the Love Boat*/
/* Iank@microsoft.com                     */
/* I wan't my 32bit chip set              */

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:22:30 GMT

gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>
>>I thought the Resolver had a coprocessor on it.  Doesn't it?
>
>Yes.  When I said "processor-driven" I meant that the boards have their
>own processors.
>

Then our comparison isn't fair.  The ET4000-based SVGA's don't have
their own processors.  The ET4000 itself is just a fast VGA controller.

>-- Gerald
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| 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: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:30:16 GMT

har@ux.acs.umn.edu (--SeebS--) writes:
>>>On DOS, I have never seen
>>>a mainstream compiler that could be used as a TSR, so you have to 
>>>load the compiler for each file you are compiling.  What a joke!
>
>>Well, I guess UNIX is a joke because "make" usually loads the compiler
>>for each file in the project.
>
>No, it doesn't. Not on a well-designed system.
>
>Make asks for the compiler. The chances are, the compiler hasn't yet been
>dumped from memory, so mmap() or whatever just uses the existing copy.
>

This is a good point, but it depends on the implementation, I guess.

>
>On my "wimpy" amiga, I've compiled about a megabyte of source code with
>*no* disk access, 'cuz the compiler, the assembler, and the source were
>all in the pseudo-disk-cache. Thus, I could compile the *whole* thing with
>one disk access - that of make reading its makefile.
>
>Let's see your DOS clone do *that*.
>

Are you telling me I can't have a large disk cache with delayed writes on
my DOS clone?

>>
>>As for DOS, *please* try not to post derogatory remarks about things of
>>which you have no knowledge.  Take a look at any Borland compiler and 
>>tell me it can't be made resident.
>
>Oh, well, hate to disappoint you, but us grunts don't get to *choose* a
>compiler. We're handed one and told we *must* use it. Period... And here
>I sit, stuck working with MS C.
>

My heart bleeds.  Look, I pointed out Borland C because the ignoramus said,
"On DOS, I have never seen a mainstream compiler that could be used as
a TSR...  What a joke!"  The fact that you must use MS C is not my fault.

>
>Peter Seebach, using my fiancee's acount. (Please use "SEEBS" in the subject
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| 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
Subject: Enforcer? You still use that thing?
Summary: testing
Reply-To: mtyler@frisbee.telink.com (Kenneth Dam)
Followup-To: /dev/null
Distribution: usa
Organization: TELink Communications Services
Date: 17 Apr 92 09:42:35 GMT
From: mtyler@frisbee.telink.com
X-SunStrand-Hdr: Hello, Seattle.  gif is pronounced "jif".

This is a test.  Please ignore it.  My apologies, but our site is not
fully configured and I needed to test non-local distributions.  Please
do NOT reply by mail.

MTyler
From: kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (KodaK)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Date: 11 Apr 92 09:08:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

[sorry about the deletion, inews rejects articles shorter than the quoted
 material ]

>	You are so out of it that I can't believe you would think such
>a thing. Now I know better than to listen to any more of this crap. I don't
>care if you have been using a 486 or an XT; your personal opinion doesn't
>mean anything. How dare you claim that the speed of a 386 is any different
>than an A3000 when dropped from a 2nd story window...they both accelerate
>at 9.8 meters per second, which is around 32 feet per second!
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^
>(:

Now, come on, if you wanna get technical, it's -9.81 meters per second
squared!                                       ^
^^^^^^^
And "around"?  What kind'a sci-en-tific term is that?  You should say
"jus' 'bout".  Sound's MUCH better.

:)

>      //   David Tiberio  SUNY Stony Brook 2-3662  AMIGA  DDD-MEN   


Jason Balicki
kodak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu


PS:  I _*LOVE*_ thunderstorms..................
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: dano@usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:26:47 GMT

Gerrit@laosinh.stgt.sub.org (Gerrit_Heitsch) writes:

>In article <1992Apr5.224121.13332@ctr.columbia.edu>, Jerry Shekhel writes:

>> It could be, but IBM will supposedly attempt to change that view by bundling
>> OS/2 with its home systems (PS/1's) and doing heavy advertising.
>I thought OS/2 2.0 will only work on a 386/486 ?
>The PS/1 is a 80286-10 with 1 waitstate. Do you want to run OS/2 on
>such a slow processor ?

I think was alrady commented on.

 The new line of IBM PS/1 home computers use a 386SX CPU

And, I think it is encouraging that it is assumed OS/2 2.0 will run ifne
with a 386SX CPU. BUt I am not sure what Mhz the PS/1 runs at.

_Dan
.

>Gerrit


>|--------Gerrit Heitsch  Moenchweg 16  7038 Holzgerlingen  Germany---------|
>|Logical adresses : UUCP : gerrit@laosinh.stgt.sub.org FIDO : (2:247/706.9)|
>|-----------Fun starts at 68030, pain at 80x86, torture at 8080------------|
--
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

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:32:10 GMT

skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls) writes:
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>>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?
>>
>>How are they suitably equipped (i.e., what hardware does each system have)?
>>Curious.
>
>               A3000                          PC386
>
>cpu            68030-25                       80386-25
>fpu            68882-25                       80387-25
>RAM            6M                             8M
>Bus            Zorro III                      ISA
>HD             52M Quantum SCSI               80M ??? IDE
>Video          Native Amiga                   SVGA
>Audio          4 Voice, 8 bit                 1 beep
>Ethernet       16 bit                         16 bit 
>floppy         3.5" 880k                      3.5" 1.44M, 5.25" 1.2M
>OS             AmigaOS 2.04                   MS-DOS 5.0
>mouse          Amiga                          Logitech

Assuming these are the configurations Mr. Shekhel was speaking of, it is
obvious that they are not quite comparably equipped.  The A3000 is using
its native graphics, yet the 386 has an SVGA card.  The A3000 needs the
high density 3.5" floppy and the 5.25" drive (if such things are important).
The extra 2M RAM would even things out on the Amiga's side.  The 386 needs
EISA (?) and OS 2.

With the above systems, modified or not, I find it hard to believe that the
386 could give better performance than an A3000.  I have used an A3000 (25MHz
030) and a 33MHz 486.  I found the performance of the two to be very close.
In any event Mr. Shekhel did not say what performance he was comparing.
Perhaps the 386 falls faster from a 2nd story window.

-- Gerald
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 13:10:36 GMT
X-Bytes: 

Rob Healey writes
> 	Not hard at all. What happens to your seamless Mac when you put
> 	an HP PCL printer or Epson 9 pin printer on it? The printing system
> 	on the Amiga leaves it to a printer driver to decide how best to
> 	render an image on paper.

So does the Mac.. What, you thought it did 'driver-level' stuff in the OS  
itself?
--
*******************************************************************************
* "Imagine sky.. High above, in Caribbean Blue.." <sigh>                      *
* The University of Kentucky doesn't pay well enough to share my opinions.    *
*******************************************************************************
From: Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  Mac OS just sucks -- "ease of use" = "lack of freedom"
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:56:52 GMT
  <1992Apr3.210913.2100@ms.uky.edu> <sbiddle.055c@aviate.cavebbs.gen.nz>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>>>    Output from AmigaTeX surpasses anything what I've seen done on the Mac,
>>> except when it's done by an expert in typesetting/layout.
>>
>>What have you seen done on the Mac to compare this to?
>

Guys, this is a completely moot point.  TeX is like postscript, it's
indepedendent of the machine which produces it.  The output of AmigaTeX
will look exactly like the output of MacTex which wlll look exactly
like the output of NeXTTex... If it's not, its not allowed to be called
TeX.

>It's not what have you seen, it's what is known. It is quite well known
>that the Amiga has a very good, many consider to be the best, TeX program.


Yes, the Amiga is supposed to have one of the nicest TeX _environments_
of any computer.  But thats not related to the quality of the output.

--
Lee   Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com
From: jbono@tension.UUCP (John Bono)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Intel HW
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:36:15 EST
Organization: High Tension BBS

Time for me to clear up some misconceptions about Intel HW and OS's:
 
1.  Windows is *not* multitasking.  It is a very clever method of task
switching under dos which will crash if you look at it funny.
 
2.  The 486 is *significantly* slower than the '040, *particularly* at
floating point math.  This is due to the fact that the 486 has significant
ties back to the 8088(note--I said 8088, *not* 8086).  The 8088 is an 8-bit
chip.  This means that the 486 has to be run 8088 code.  In thirty two bit
applications, the 040 is significantly faster because it need not worry about
running 68K code, since the 68K had a 32-bit internal instruction set(like the
386sx).  In addition, the '040 has a method of pipelining instructions which
in certain circumstances can boost speed to 25 mips.  Real-World speed for an
'040 is about 18-20 mips depending on the platform.  This means that a 33 mhz
'040 has the same speed as a 50 mhz 486.  On the Amiga, this difference is
further amplified since the Amiga has very little OS overhead.  Actions that
suck CPU time out of traditional computers like the PC and MAC are covered by
the Amiga's custom chips, such as screen refresh, disk access, etc.  This is
why most Amigas will consistently outperform systems with much more powerful
CPUs, i.e. an A3000-16 will consistently outperform a Mac IIci, though the
IIci has a more powerful CPU, and in most cases, an A3000 will outperform most
486's or IIfx's under heavy multitasking, for the same reason.
 
John
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington)
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:09:50 GMT

jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>gerald@seas.gwu.edu (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
>>We were comparing performance.  Price is another issue.
>>
>
>OK, if price is not an issue, then it's not fair to compare the DMI to the
>SVGA, is it?

How so?  They are both processor-driven graphics card that give 8-bit,
high resolution graphics.

-- Gerald
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:00:15 GMT
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <2mmjn_=.harp@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>>Pretty soon, OS/2 will come out with a multiprocessor version, and Windows 
>>NT will also support multiprocessing. Then see how an 040 compares with a 
>>multiprocessed 486. 

>Hmmmm...  What exactly does the 486 have that gives it extra capability
>to be used in a multiprocessing system?

It doesn't have anything, in fact, its less suited to multiprocessing.  Both
the '040 and the '486 support a bus locking mechanism, which is necessary to
support multiprocessing-secure semaphores.  That's about where the '486 
support ends.  The '040 supports caching in copyback mode, which results in a
significant reduction in bus usage, critical to any tightly coupled 
multiprocessing system.  The '040 also support cache snooping, which allows
multiple cached processors to efficiently coexist in a multiprocessed system.
Most of this stuff seems to come pretty directly from the 88K family, which is
well known for its multiprocessing ability (88Ks also support a form of 
compute redundancy, where a processor can check the results of another, for
use in critical systems; this isn't implemented in the '040 design).

>I guess I'd better go tell our 1 040, 10 020 transport controller that
>Motorola chips can't multiprocess.  They'll be shocked and dismayed.  I
>know some of those 020's personally, and they'll be _crushed_...

Well, anything can multiprocess, with sufficient hardware and software
support.  The idea is to make it efficient, and a few crucial items, such 
as those I mentioned, much be implemented on the CPU to be done efficiently.

>BTW, the 68k line has supported many features required in
>multiprocessing systems since day one such as the TAS (test and set)
>instruction, used for semaphores, for example.  Does the x86 line 
>have something similar?  (I'm simply asking -- I avoid Intel 
>assembly like the plague...)

The x86 processors have a LOCK instruction (I don't know the actual mnemonic,
nor would I care to learn it), which makes the next instruction atomic.  It's
a bit more flexible than the 68k method (or that of just about any other
processor), and as well pretty useless, since most anything beyond TAS has an
tendency to complicate the machine design much more than its usefulness
would warrent (including some of the other atomic instructions on the 680x0
like CAS or CAS2; most RISCs give you one kind of lock, that's all you need).
Of course, you may need something like LOCK if you're trying to get around
not having an OS with proper semaphore locked structures, but there's no need
for this in any modern OS.
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      BIX: hazy
 "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused" - Elvis Costello