Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!jwbirdsa From: jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Webster Birdsall) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: dosread.c again Message-ID: <11039@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 24 Oct 89 00:31:24 GMT References: <3717@ast.cs.vu.nl> <3a18.2536ede8@ibmpcug.co.uk> <3721@ast.cs.vu.nl> <2501@optilink.UUCP> <1989Oct20.170447.19573@utzoo.uucp> <5182@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <6627@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Webster Birdsall) Organization: Princeton University, NJ Lines: 56 In article <6627@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <5182@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> webb@uhccux.UUCP (Thomas Webb) writes: >> Also, those >> of us on tight personal budgets can get a complete DOS development >> system for about $1500, $1000 for the machine and $500 for a very >> complete set of development software. > >You can get an Amiga development system for about that, and you get a real >operating system with a message-based kernel, multitasking, windowing, and >a decent base of commercial programs (yes, only a couple of the spreadsheets >are 1-2-3 compatible. Shucks). Or of you don't care whether you can run >alternatives to DOS, even on 8088-based machines. >-- >Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. >Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' Maybe, maybe not. DON'T try developing on an Amiga without at least a meg of memory and two floppies. Having watched a friend deal with a 512K Amiga with one floppy, I have a few doubts about the Amiga. The OS (which SOUNDS good) tended to lock up randomly or do whimsical things, like run out of memory and never give an error message (that's our best explanation for why a certain graphics program would work only every second or third time). However, I understand that version 1.3 is better (he was using 1.2). So, assuming one can get a loaded-enough Amiga for the same price, and that the new version of the OS works better, let's talk about the compilers. I understand that the Amiga developers' community itself is up in arms about the compilers, which still have major bugs even in versions 5.x (I may have the number wrong -- but I know it was many, many generations). Standard C code, using only standard library calls, which would compile under both DOS and UNIX without changes, would either not compile or would crash the system on the Amiga. The Amiga compilers make UNIX compilers (which tend toward the flaky themselves) look utterly reliable. If and when the compilers are finally fixed, then the Amiga will be a really nice computer. Except for the graphics, which are merely adequate, which I don't understand at all. The resolution is comparable to the medium-res modes on my Super VGA. So why does the text look like my old CGA, with scan lines not only clearly visible but SEPARATED by a thin blank? IMPORTANT NOTE: I AM NOT FLAMING THE AMIGA. I would take an Amiga over a Mac any day. I just don't think that it is a LOW-COST development platform, since an Amiga 2000 costs something like $2000 all by itself (price courtesy of my friend, who gave up on his old system). The software has a few problems yet, but it *is* possible to work around them (as witness all the Amiga software available) and the problems are far less evident on a loaded machine (part of why it isn't low-cost). I guess all the Amiga supremacists will have to flame me anyway... Sorry, guys, but there isn't a machine on the market which I don't have at least _some_ reservations about. -- James W. Birdsall jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU jwbirdsa@pucc.BITNET ...allegra!princeton!phoenix!jwbirdsa Compu$erve: 71261,1731 "For it is the doom of men that they forget." -- Merlin