Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!python.cis.ohio-state.edu!mitroo From: mitroo@python.cis.ohio-state.edu (varun mitroo) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Attention Amiga (and Amiga to be) Users! Message-ID: <85929@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: 14 Nov 90 09:41:13 GMT References: <1990Nov4.220612.21316@cbnewsl.att.com> <35605@cup.portal.com> <9537@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <431@tlvx.UUCP> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: varun mitroo Distribution: usa Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 111 I would like to make a few general comments about the amiga and some other computers. These are my opinions and beliefs after years of using computers. First the Amiga: The Amiga is a GREAT computer. I have had one for over two years, and I have been very happy with it overall. It has a really interesting environment, and there are a lot of neat programs for it (DeluxePaint is still one of the best, I feel!) Multitasking is great, and I like the general idea behind it - to have a good computer with nice graphics at a reasonable price. The biggest problems with it are the ugly Workbench (2.0 is MUCH better, but - as one of my 'casual computer user' friends said - "the screen looks squashed") and the general unreliability of the computer - the GURU, cheap quality, shoddy workmanship. The Macintosh: Overall an inferior computer. Has nothing going for it hardware wise, but makes up for it (more than makes up for it, in some cases) with software. It is priced way too high for what you get. However, Apple has sold quite a few of them, and in some ways, they really are good at 'just getting the job done without becoming a computer nerd'. Plus there is lots of third party support for the mac, and one can make up for the bland hardware with MONEY. I greatly despise Apple Computer. They are selling mediocre hardware at outrageous prices, and preying upon the average american's ignorance of computers in making a buck. Their TV ads and advertising give this impression too - but it's paying off - EVERYBODY knows about 'macs'. They had one of the stupidest ads in the June '90 Personal Workstation magazine - "The power to be your best, no matter what you do best." - which talks about the "point-and- click simplicity" giving the Macintosh some mysterious power over other computers. By the way, they should spend some of that advertising money into researching grammar. I counted 16 paragraphs in a one page ad, many of them one sentence or fragments. For example: "Only a Macintosh gives you so much power to do so many things so quickly and so easily." Apple would be much better off actually making innovations rather than suing everybody in order to stay in the market. (By the way, I used to own an Apple II.) IBM and pc clones: The closest thing to a generic computer. Generally are pretty good at getting productive work done. The amount of software is enormous, and a lot of it is excellent. You can get good quality, fast, and cheap clones that are perfect at certain places in business. IBM is following the lead of Apple - making proprietary hardware and trying to sell pathetic systems to the buyer that doesn't know any better (the PS/1 computer). Since they have nothing that they can license to other companies (and generally rip them off), they have invented "Micro Channel Architecture" which is just a plain 32 bit bus with really nothing special. I HOPE THEY BURN ON THIS. Computers should be open and free to all, each company building upon previous work to advance the general computing world. Companies and individuals should be entitled to rewards for their work, but not for something that is not an improvement, just a rehash of current technology repackaged into a different standard. Somebody else said before on the net said that IBM is not a visionary company. I think that explains it pretty well. NeXT: This is a very good computer. The old NeXT cubes were overpriced and underpowered (everybody knows this), but the new ones are something else! Everybody who was arguing about Amigas or NeXTs being better, get this: They are two very different computers for very different tasks. There is no competition hardware-wise. 1a. The Amiga has 16 bit NMOS custom chips for graphics and 8 bit sound. Good, but very outdated. The wait states to access chip ram are unbelievable. b. The NeXT has the DSP chip that is full 32 bit and performs at 10 MIPS - much faster than even the 68030 at some things. 2a. With DMA, amiga hard drives can achieve transfer rates of 1 MB/sec b. The NeXT has 9 DMA channels that have a bandwidth of 40 MB/sec. Transfer rates of their hard drives is 1.6 MB SUSTAINED going up to 4 or even 8 MB/sec. 3a. Amiga graphics are currently anchored by the custom chips and compatibility. Remarkable what Commodore has done with the ECS considering what they had to work with. b. The NeXT was designed with a large high-resolution screen in mind. With hardware prices dropping, they are jumping to the cutting-edge of graphics. 4a. The Amiga comes with a cheap plastic keyboard, and dependability and quality of systems is generally low. (1950 monitor problems, disk clicking, chips becoming unseated, mouse failing, cheap power supply (on the 500), etc.) b. The NeXT has extremely high quality equipment. Everything about the system shows - EXCELLENT keyboard, good mouse, heavy metal enclosures for their computers (problems with the optical disk, though). Don't get me wrong, I think Amigas are really fun and are good to use. There ARE some things that can only be done on an amiga. I just saw a videotape of some of the projects of students taking a graphics class working with Sculpt-4D, and I was pretty impressed with the work that was done. There was no way that this could have been done on an IBM, mac, or NeXT - at least not for anywhere near the cost. At the same time, there is a lot of work going on with graphics on other computers (sun, pixar, etc.) that is on a much different level than the amiga. Seeing both the amiga and the other graphics computers made me realize something - each computer has its own place. For its price, the amiga is very good at animation and video. For professional work or research there is no reason to use an amiga - the resolution and color is too low. The future of the Amiga is pretty good. With all the new video boards (like the Toaster), the amiga will get entrenched as a video machine. AmigaVision and other multi-media programs capitalize on the amiga's strengths. Lots of better quality software available (TAD). However, forget it for seeing the Amiga in a business environment or as being used as a workstation. It's a different kind of computer. Sorry for this being such a long post. I really had to get a lot of things off my chest. By the way, I am an officer of the campus amiga user group, and I just bought a NeXT Cube from Businessland (too bad that guy was raving about the NeXT recently and getting people defensive - they really are nice computers). Varun Mitroo mitroo@cis.ohio-state.edu