Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!carina.unm.edu!sdowdy From: sdowdy@carina.unm.edu (Stephen Dowdy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Real System Comparisons Summary: IBM/Intel/MicroSoft => Wasted ManPower. Message-ID: <1990Aug10.061056.15745@ariel.unm.edu> Date: 10 Aug 90 06:10:56 GMT References: <13466@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: usenet@ariel.unm.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: sdowdy@carina.unm.edu.UUCP (Stephen Dowdy) Distribution: usa Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 87 In article mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: }In article eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: } } The point is often made that software for the Amiga is less } expensive than for Mac or IBM. } }I think you've got that backwards. Then again, it could depend on what }you're pricing. I've noticed that C compilers are much cheaper on the }IBM PC. But I haven't used them, so that to get the same quality you }may need to spend the same or more money. It has been my impression that software for the Amiga *is* cheaper. However, i have not researched this very much. I would like to give you my belief as to why this is (or should be) true.... Anyone who has ever programmed the intel 80x8x architecture has been initiated, somewhat like a fraternity pledge being put through excrutiating and humiliating circumstances. I mean PROGRAMMING in native assembler. Remember back when you still saw: "... With up to 64K of data ..." on software documentation? That was what the 808x and 80x8x were supposed to overcome (while providing binary compatibility with the Z80 (or whatever it was)). However, if you've ever done assembly on this braindead segmented architecture, you quickly come to the conclusions: 1) limit my software to 64K and data to 64K 2) expend A LARGE AMOUNT of effort in program development 1 was only usable so long before people could take no more. #2 translates into, you guessed it, HIGHER PRICES. Noone is going to do all that extra work and eat the development costs. Okay, so you say, "But most things can be done on C Compilers that exert the extra effort for you". Well, those C Compilers were long in development (to get to where they are now). Also, As time went on, people began wanting more... Well, without running in protected/real mode on the Intel architecture, you are still effectively limited to 640K. Developers like WordPerfect, in their effort to add more features found themselves needing to "crunch" their packages down. Again, more development costs. (Unless it has changed, the BIOS call to enter "Protected Mode" was over 120 assembly instructions last time i looked. That's loony, just to get > 1M addressing?) A lot of the added burden of the software developer comes from having to do work that should be done in the OS. MS-DOS, to be blunt, is a pile of junk, as far as OS support is concerned. Niceties like shared (run time linkable) libraries such as on AmigaDos substantially reduce development time and effort for programs, by providing standardized interfaces and shared resources. In addition, the companies who have been buying PCs, have been used to paying big bucks for software. Just like the Oil companies, if the enduser is willing to pay, why keep the price down. }If your purpose calls for raw CPU or FPU power, and little else (i.e. }- all you do is spreadsheet recalcs), then the IBM boxes provide more }bang - either for the buck, or total (I think - anyone want to comment }on that Wietek chip?). } }If you need animations and NTSC-compatable images, then the Amiga is }going to provide a lot more bang for the buck, if not total. } }They're hard to call as C development environments. On the other hand, }the IBM PC doesn't have a mature multitasking OS with the features and }support the Amiga does. } }