Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: dosread.c again
Message-ID: <6660@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 24 Oct 89 17:04:40 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> <11039@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 72

In article <11039@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Webster Birdsall) writes:
>    Maybe, maybe not. DON'T try developing on an Amiga without at least a
> meg of memory and two floppies.

I'll agree with two floppies, but then I have NEVER found a machine
that's worth a damn with only one floppy. But 512K and two floppies
is quite usable. That's all I had while we were developing "Tracers".
Remember, these are 880K floppies.

But the new machines (500 and 2000) come with or cheaply expand to 1 meg.
End of problem.

>    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.

Let's talk about the compilers. They're certainly better than the PC
compilers at a similar point in their development cycle. I remember
using Microsoft C back when it was made by Lattice. Bletch.

And if you want to develop for Windows, you need to buy the new
Microsoft compiler, Windows development kit, and so on. We're talking
big bucks. All that comes for free with the Amiga.

And the Aztec and Lattice debuggers are as good as anything on the PC.
Better, because with the windowing you can run them without interfering
with your precious screen output.

> 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).

That call them "V 5.x", but they've skipped a few numbers. Aztec is
about to jump straight from 3.6 to 5.0. Marketing hype.

> 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.

I don't know what "standard C code" we're talking about, but that hasn't
been my experience. And how about standard library calls like "popen"?
How do you do that on an IBM?

> 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?

Because you're not using the high resolution mode for text. Not only do
you have a selection of modes, you can have them on the screen at the same
time.

>    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).

So get an Amiga 500.

>    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.

Me too, but I try to avoid comparing apples to oranges.

The biggest problem with the Amiga is Commodore's advertising budget.
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"That particular mistake will not be repeated.  There are plenty of        'U`
 mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)