Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!kessner!david From: david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) Subject: Re: Amiga 3000UX, X, OpenLook, Motif, Color, A2410, Etc. (somewhat long) Message-ID: <1991Mar21.085254.5325@kessner.denver.co.us> Reply-To: david@kessner.denver.co.us (David D. Kessner) Organization: Kessner, Inc References: <1991Mar20.211652.3247@kessner.denver.co.us> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 08:52:54 GMT In article eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > I thought your system didn't have an XT bus? The problems "only" >occur when DMA can choke the CPU by taking over the bus. >Unfortunately, most PC compatable '386 machines currently have XT >busses. I have the standard "PC AT" bus which is called the ISA bus, for Industry Standaed Arch. Then there is MCA or Microchanel-- where IBM clames that you cannot do 'multitasking' without it (and only thet have it!). There is also EISA, for Extended ISA-- wich is like MCA, but isnt owned by IBM and is compatable with normal ISA cards. I have the ISA bus, but have never experienced the jerkyness that you describe... > No, I was speaking about other alternatives. As far as I know, the >ULowell board will only be required for color X. Yes, but Amiga UNIX V2 will support color on the standard hardware! :) > My point was that there is no point to spending the money to take >these features out, the savings in hardware cost wouldn't come close >to covering the development overhead and the added manufacturing costs >of an additional product line. Yes, as long as Amiga UNIX has a small/piddly market share in the 'typical UNIX shop'. Once/if it gets a larger market share, it might be cost effective to make such a machine. That's one of the reasons that I said C= would be foolish to actually build a machine like that. In addition, it would look just like any other 030/040 based UNIX box out there (with the exception of the NeXT, which is stange in its own way). > I have been complaining about the user percieved speed of the >Sun-3's since back when SPARC was a glimmer in Sun's eye. The problem >has been that a display interface that was not a bottleneck with a >68010 based Sun-2 is a real pain in the neck on a Sun-3. My 2500/30 >happens to be faster than most of the Sun-3 around here, but not the >factor of ten that the relative display speeds will convince you is >the case. Yes. Percieved speed is another issue. But more on that in a sec... > And I think Commodore is figuring that people who have to support a >lot of machines will much prefer the Amiga, due to a much better >support level, and less set-up time, etc. I expect to get in some >SPARCstations in the next month, I'll time how long it takes to set >them up, last time it was 6 hours/machine, (Ouch!) but I hope to >remember some of the gotchas for next time. The 3000U is shiped plug >and play. C='s UNIX market is on a 'lower level' than your typical SUN user. That is to say that they have less knoledge of UNIX than most SUN users/sys-admins. Given that, C= needs to do a little more "hand holding" to keep their customers happy. Some companies are realizing this, like Apple shipping Mac UNIX already installed on a hard drive. There are other companies that are doing this as well-- or will be soon. I installed UNIX on my 386 from 40+ 1.2 meg floppies. You though 6 hours was long! I dont think that set-up time is as important to those UNIX guru's. But it is obviously important to someone... > But not the same code generators! The cheats for Dhrystone (as opposed to >optimizations) were all in the code generators. These results are consistent with EVERY dhrystone test I have seen, including those in UNIX Review, where they list 1.1 results as well as 2.x. > If you read between the lines of what I wrote, you might see that I >expect that the Dhrystone speeds for the next relase of Amiga Unix to >be somewhat higher (but not higher than the comparable AmigaDOS >numbers). The biggest improvement in the next release may be that the >system is compiled with a better compiler. The same Dhrystone program when compiled with Lattice C under AmigaDOS (with the 030 optimization turned on) got 7600 dhry/sec. I would not expect any Dhrystone program (1.1 or 2.x) to get more than 8500 using any compiler. I would not expect the Dhrystone results to get better with Amiga UNIX v2, but OS overhead will improve signifigantly. I've hinted enough: DOES ANYONE HAVE DHRYSTONE 2.X OR SPECMARK CODE???? (and now back to the normally schedualed program...) > I think that you and I are looking at two different types of >performance. Robert Silverman here at MITRE uses distributed networks >of workstations to factor large prime numbers. He cares about raw >(integer) speed, but most of the people at MITRE do mostly text >processing, and for this the Amiga (with 8 Meg at least for emacs on X >:-), is faster than most of the SPARCstations. Flipping instantly >between screens instead of rooting through windows is easy to get >addicted to (and actually makes smaller displays preferable). For me, the raw CPU power is important since I do a lot of CPU bound tasks. Disk I/O is also important, but to a lesser extent. I also have 12 meg of RAM, so swapping is not a problem. All of the terminals (one local, another via 9600 V.42bis modem) are connected via 38400 baud connections and are not a bottle-neck themselves. All in all, I am only I/O bound when I get a large Netnews batch-- but that has to do with the 28ms drives I have... FYI, I have found a BIG case for text only displays. On the 386, I can 'cat' a 80K text file in about 6 seconds. It even supports ten virtual terminals. It makes X windows look snail'ish... > Therefore, when I said what is quoted above, It was refering to the > cost of adding a 040 board, a 34010 board, a 16-17" monitor, and a > few other bells and whistles. > > All these are available or are in the pipe, and modulo what I said >above about large displays, I expect that such a machine will list for >about what a color SPARCstation does. (But no one will pay list for >either.) I expect all of these to be available for the A3000-- but I too expect it to cost as much as a "mainstream" workstation which is the original point. If you spend this much for a fast Amiga, why not just get a SPARC Clone or comparable machine? In terms of proce/performance there is little reason- there is only "AmigaDOS" and "set-up time" that may/may-not be a factor (depending on what brand you get). Another FYI: Do you know why God made ? Someone has to pay list price? > As I said, the market they are playing in seems to have a "real" >prices in the $5 to $10K range. By going third party for disks and >memory, I can set up a color SPARCstation for about $15K. (Flame >retardant: The system hardware is less than half of that, additional >network plant adds about $1 to 2K and the rest is software.) If I can >get a comparable Amiga with Unix for less than $10K, I'm happy. For >$15K I expect that I will be able to get the system you describe >above. (Again, less than $10K for hardware...) Judging buy what I saw at the FALL COMDEX, there are a dozen or so new SPARC Clones that should be in the $8000-9000 range for 16" color, 200 meg HD, 8meg RAM, and eithernet. The ones I saw ran Sun OS 4.? but I would not be suprised to see System Vr4 in the bunch. Some of these systems are available now (like the Mars/Tatung system), while others should be available this summer (like Goldstar, DTK, and Compuadd). > Again, you lost me. I wasn't talking about such things as third >party devices (like Exabyte tapes :-), I was talking about the time to >get the basic system configured, up, and running. I am always >appalled by the fact that configuring NFS under AmigaDOS (with a >Ameristar card and software) took less time than hooking up the cable, >while similar installation or changes on a Sun are a nightmare. And >Sun invented NFS! Ahhh... You mean something more like "Working right out of the box." That is another story. I agree that something needs to be done here (I still dont have my eithernet working correctly). I have not played too much with AmigaUNIX on this part-- but would assume that once you get off the "standard configuration" that things are pritty much the same as typical UNIX systems. Am I wrong to assume this? > Cost? Not unless the price goes below $5000 (i'm > talking UXD here). > > I don't think I'll ever see a Unix workstation with a real cost >below $5000, but the Amiga does come close. I can configure a 386 UNIX system in the $4000-4500 range. Add $1000 for a 486/25 system. Here is what I base this on: $1500 Bare bone 386/25 (one floppy, keyboard, case, 200 watt PS) 400 8 Meg RAM 400 150 meg HD 100 HD/Floppy controller 600 800x600x256 SVGA card and monitor 1500 UNIX System (unlimited users, development, X/Motif, manuals) 400 Math Co-processor (not needed, but a good idea) 100 Mouse (a damn good mouse, since most cost $65). --------------------------- 3500 Total Add to this $1000 worth of add-ons. Perhapse a 34010 board for $600. Eithernet for $125. Tape backup for $400. A Telbit T2500 at $950. Etc.. The usuall price difference between a 386/25 and a 486/25 is about $1000, but this changes daily... As you see, the 386 system is some real competition. At the $3500 base price, there are a lot of changes that you can add-- 34010 boards and caching disk controllers are near the top of the list. I wont say that a 386 system is better-- just damn attractive. > Robert I. Eachus - David K -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | do { 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | . . . If you cant flame MS-DOS, who can you flame? | } while( jones);