From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Subject: Re: HELP--AMIGA OR IBM PC CLONE?
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:58:58 GMT

In article <C0o5oF.Iv3@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>That's just it, there is no SVGA standard.  There are so many different
>>chips that supporting all of them can be difficult.  VESA attempts to 
>>provide a standard, but it is usually very slow and isn't guaranteed to
>>work on all systems.  
>
>Who needs a standard?  That's what drivers are for.  As long as they
>all write to the driver standard, the actual hardware can be as bizarre
>(and powerful) as the electrical engineers can make it.

And what happens if you don't want to use Windows?  You hope that there
is a driver for your application or game that works with your board.  If
not, you are SOL.  

>>SVGA is equivalent in terms of resolution, but it lacks the flexibility
>>of AGA.  Here's a little comparison of my A4000 versus my ET4000 486-50
>>at work:
>>
>>                            AGA                      SVGA
>>
>>memory                      2M                       1-2M
>
>SVGA can be 1-3MB.  That's the most I've seen, but there could be some
>with more.

Proving that there is no standard...

>>palette                     24 bit                   18/24 bit
>
>SVGA can have a 32 bit palette.  Not 32 bit actual colours on the
>screen but all that mask crap that Amiga users and other graphical
>types like to talk about.

Big deal, AmigaDOS 3.0 and up support a 96bit palette.  :-)

If all that mask crap is such crap, why does SVGA need it?

>>max colors:
>>            320x200         256/HAM8                 256
>>            640x480         256/HAM8                 256/32k/64k/24bit
>>            800x600         256/HAM8                 256/32k/64k
>>           1024x768         --------                 256
>
>Or 32k, or 64k, or full 24 bit.  I was just reading a review of a board
>that goes up to 24 bit at 1024X768, does it relatively quickly too.  I
>guess the point is a little moot since AGA can't even go this high...

I believe I clearly stated above that I was referring to the SVGA board
in my machine at work...

>>           1280x512         256/HAM8                 ---
>
>Hmm, now there's an interesting mode...I'd like to see that some day.

Why?  It would be of little or no use to you.

>>           1280x1024         --------                  16
>
>or more...depending on the board.

And less.  There are machines which support SVGA, but the max res is only
640x400 in 256 colors.  SVGA is anything greater than VGA.

>># sprites                     8                        0
>>15kHz support               yes                      no
>
>I don't read Hz specs too much because I have a standard SVGA monitor,
>not a multiscan, but I would suspect that I can find a board to do any
>mode you want.

For a price.  There are VGA to NTSC solutions, but they don't support
overscan and are limited to 640 pixels horizontally, leaving an ugly 
border on video.  Most of these boards cost as much or more than an
A600 or A1200...

>>31kHz support               yes                      yes
>>overscan support            yes                      no
>>NTSC support                yes                      no
>>PAL support                 yes                      no
>>genlock support             yes                      no
>>multi-res support           yes                      no
>>graphics bus                16 bit direct            16 bit ISA
>
>Why only 16 bit ISA?  As you know, there are VESA spec, local,
>accelerated 32 bit, 33Mhz video boards.

Again, I am referring to my machine at work...

>>bandwidth                   ~7M/sec                  ~3M/sec
>
>Vesa spec bandwith is much higher then EITHER of these.  Byte says
>150Mps sec...that's 19M/sec.  They also say: "Few of today's
>applications require more then 100Mbs"...Vesa spec local bus has
>bandwith to spare.

Oh no, the man has a copy of Byte.  We must not dispute him now...

As before, I was referring to my machine at work...

>>bit-blitting                custom chip              CPU driven
>
>or custom chip.  This board I was looking at uses a 68008 CPU.  Is that
>a newer version of the chip that powers the A600?

Again, I was talking about my machine at work...

>>line-drawing                custom chip              CPU driven
>
>Or coprocessed.  Same deal...it depends on the board you buy.  And this
>one was $250.00.

Once more, I was talking about my machine at work...

>>video-effects               custom chip              CPU driven (if possible)
>
>Once again, you have made a sweeping statement.

Once again, you have failed to realize I was talking about the machine 
that I use at work, nothing more...

>>>>So, the Gateway's CPU should come close to the speed of the 33MHz 040, 
>>>>unless you need to do a lot of floating point.
>>>
>>>Give me a BREAK.  What total CRAP.  A 66MHZ 486DX is "close" to the
>>>speed of a 33MHZ 040, unless you have to do floating poing.   Come
>>>on...what colour is the sky in your world?
>>
>>It is not a DX, it is a DX2, which uses Intel's clock-doubling scam.
>>If Motorola had better marketing folks and if the people who buy the
>>Motorola machines were as ignorant as those who buy Intel machines,
>>the could have called the 040-25 a 50Mhz chip.  The motherboard of the
>>Gateway is only running at 33MHz, not the full 66MHz, and the machines
>>are not much faster than the regular 33MHz models.
>
>Bull.  I know exactly how the DX2 works.   And if you knew as much as
>you pretend to know about computers, you wouldn't think there is a scam
>involved here at all.  The Alpha can run faster then 100Mhz, and it
>will.  Do you think the MOTHERBOARD is going to run that fast?  Not
>unless it's liquid cooled...

If DEC advertises the Alpha as a 200MHz chip and explains that it is 
100MHz or 50MHz external, it is not a scam.  But most bozos will believe
that the whole computer runs at 200MHz unless they are informed of what
is really going on.

Intel conveniently left out the fact that the DX2's do not run at 66 or
50MHz externally, confusing many people.  In fact, I've seen people become
very upset when they realize that they'd been had by Intel...

>The next generation of CPUs will START at 66Mhz.  IT's not a scam, it's
>the future.  Running the CPU faster then the motherboard is inevitable.

Then they should explain that in their ads.

>Why should Intel slow down their 66Mhz CPUs to go as slow as a 50Mhz
>bus?  I say, let the CPU go as fast as they can make it.  Sure the bus

Did I ever say anything about slowing the chips down?  I don't think so.
My point is simply that Intel should not try to fool people into believing
that the DX2 machines are full blown 66MHz Clones...

>is a bottleneck for SOME (even most) applications.  A bottleneck does
>not mean that there is not a performance enhacement.  Some people put
>386 chips in ISA slots to run their computer.  THAT's a bottleneck.
>But they still get a performance enhancement. 

The bottleneck is having to be compatible with the XT, AT, and ISA designs.
Put a 386 or 486 in a 32bit design without all of the crap that makes up
a Clone and you'd have a nice computer.  Throw out the need for 8088
compatibility and you'd have an even nicer computer.

>>  For some operations,
>>the 50MHz DX machines are faster than the kludged 66Mhz models.
>
>For some...not most.  The 486DX CPU cache has a >90% hit rate.  That
>means that 9 out of ten times it doesn't have to go to the mother board

Unfortunately, the new video and audio applications aren't going to fit
into the cache as well as the older business apps.  A multi-megabyte
30fps 1024x768 24bit animation won't fit in the cache.

>at all.  Back that with EXTERNAL cache, and mother board speed isn't
>crucial.  Indeed, a 33Mhz motherboard is superior, in my view to a
>50Mhz one.  Performace is greater with the DX2, and you can have more
>Vesa slots without having major timing difficulties.  Besides which,
>your computer doesn't become a radio broadcast centre.

If you don't need to use the bus, then the DX2 may indeed be faster.
As for radio broadcasts, we have 3 50MHz DX machines and 2 33MHz DX
machines in a room with 2 Amigas and we don't have any problems...

>>Okay, my A4000 is faster than my 486 at work in overall system performance.
>>As for the CPU speed, perhaps you need to learn a bit more about the scam
>>which Intel has pulled regarding the DX2 chips.
>>
>There IS NO SCAM.  This is how tomorrows chips are going to run.  We
>can't wait for the motherboard to catch up...it never will.  Alphas
>will be running at 200Mhz, probably on a 50Mhz board...are you going to
>call this a scam?

If DEC doesn't say that in their ads, yes, it is a scam.

>>And by buying an "industry standard" computer, you have helped to insure
>>that personal computers will be held back for years to come.
>
>No, by demanding a high quality clone, with a good operating system, I
>have helped to advance the state of the art in "industry standard"
>instead of being a sideline player like Amiga users.

So you use OS/2?  If you are using Windows, you are not using an OS, you
are using a glorified program launcher which mimics an OS.

Frankly, I'm quite happy on the sidelines.  The Amiga owners with whom
I regularly deal with are a cut above the rank and file Clone owners.
If we are on the sidelines, then so are Sun, NeXT, Mac, and other users,
and I find them better company than Clown users.

>Think of it as a vote...I voted for OS/2, ATI and Intel.  Leaders in
>their respective fields.

Remeber this when you're using Win NT on a MIPs architecture machine
using SGI graphics chips in a couple of years...

>You withheld your vote by casting it for someone who will never amount
>to anything.  It's like voting for Ross Perot.

So I'm not a lemming.
  
>And because
>>the Clones are such pieces of hacked together junk, you'll need that 
>>support line to get the damn thing running.  "Oh, just set this jumper to
>>R7 and then reboot, go into CMOS setup, select DF32 OFF, save it to CMOS
>>RAM and exit.  Edit the autoexec.bat file to include the line C:\DOS\KLUDGE
>>and the config.sys file to say KLUDGE=3.  Now, reboot again and then run
>>the MSD program to be sure that there are no memory conflicts.  When done,
>>go into Windows and edit the Kludge .pif file with ..."
>
>I've never had any of these problems...but then I dont' use windows.

Good for you, but too bad you'll have to switch when OS/2 dies.

>>That's what I call total bullshit, yet Clone owners will often come across
>>things like that when installing new hardware or software.  It is truly a
>>pity that the world got suckered in by IBM and Microsoft's deceptions.
>
>The world didn't get sucked in.  The world was smart...we said we
>wanted an open standard, an industry wide standard, and we wanted
>software compatibility across busses, video cards, sound cards,
>motherboards and even processors.  We wanted freedome from vendor
>dominance.

So what did you get?  You got a standard based on a brain dead 8086 and
a CP/M clone.  You have 1 major bus and 2 minor buses, with a few new
ones trying to break in.  You have dozens of different video boards, each
of which needs a specific driver to work.  You have several sound boards,
but the LCD is barely a step above the lowly C64.  And the lack of vendor
dominance gives you low prices, but makes it tough for even the big boys
to turn a profit.

>If we all bought Amiga's we'd be at Commodore's mercy, and everything,
>from full systems, down to the smallest peripheral would be an order of
>magnitude more expensive.

You don't know what you are talking about.  Monitors, modems, printers,
scanners, hard drives, tape drives, and other peripherals are the same
price for the Amiga as they are for the Clones.  How could they not be?
I've bought several peripherals over the last few years and only two
were from Commodore.  Most came right out of Computer Shopper...

>If you dont' believe that, then you dont' believe commodore is a "real"
>company in a capitalist world.  Their only job is to make what they can
>get and distribute to their shareholders.  IT's the clone competition
>that keeps them innovating and slashing prices.

Thank you for that lesson, oh master of economics.  I fully realize that
companies are out to make money and care very little about the customer.
But just because the Clones are big sellers does not mean that they are
good.  Chevrolet and Ford sell many times the number of cars that BMW
or Mercedes does, yet no one will argue which is the better car.

Skip Sauls, Amiga Advocate
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy