Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!vger.nsu.edu!manes From: manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Letter to Commodore Message-ID: <1068.285530d3@vger.nsu.edu> Date: 12 Jun 91 00:21:39 GMT References: <177458@netw23.uucp> Lines: 166 In article <177458@netw23.uucp>, val@netw23.uucp (Oberon Kenobi) writes: > The current Amigas are wonderful, but there is insufficient > incentive for me to upgrade. I await the forthcomming Amigas > with 68040s, and faster 32-bit custom chips. Insufficient incentive? Sounds to me like you are techno-spoiled. :-) If Commodore had shipped the A3000 with a 68040 a year ago (which was impossible) you probably would have changed that to a 68050. Just a guess however. Not flamming... really! > > > Thanks for multitasking. It is the best feature of the Amiga, > and I can't live without it. There are also features that I > hope to see in future versions of AmigaDOS: > - Resource tracking: When tasks terminate, they should return > all system resources back to the operating system even > under abnormal termination (i.e.: task deletion). This > most definately includes memory. Though I would like to see resource tracking, it would really hurt the performance of the Amiga. If it were implemented, I would like it to be able to be turned off via preferences. > - Memory protection: One of the (occasional) problems with > programs on the Amiga is that if they are not perfectly > behaved, they crash the system. This isn't too bad most > of the time, but it happens EVERY time I try to > demonstrate it to someone who owns another computer > system. Talk about abandoning the A500/A1000/A2000! To do effective memory protection would require the MMU of a 68020/68030. To be honest however, the Amiga operating system is very stable (certainly 2.0 is!) and this feature would really be the most effective on a developers machine. I like the idea that someone from Commodore had, about creating a special version of AmigaDOS that did _not_ have the 1.3 work-arounds, and had enforcer, memmung and all of that jazz tied in. I think that would improve the stability of user programs significantly. > - Virtual memory: It would be nice, on Amigas with MMUs, to > have virtual memory possible. Special consideration must > be made for memory that was allocated with the MEMF_PUBLIC > bit. There should also be a way to allocate > non-paged/swapped (but not necessarily public) memory. With the price of memory dropping like dirt what would be the real advantage to this? The only things I can think of is handling large 24 bit graphics data and perhaps being able to run numerous multi-megabyte applications. I like the fact that the Amiga operating system is 'real time'. I would want to be able to turn this feature off if it were implemented. > - Networking: Standard networking layers should be > distributed with the operating system. The network should > be accessed either as a library or a "device". This > networking "device" should be independant of the phyical > medium (i.e.: serial port, parallel port, ethernet, token > ring, etc.) that is used. And multiple protocols (i.e.: > TCP/IP, DECnet, AMIGAnet (?)) should be able to share the > same physical device. (A cheap ethernet interface would > be nice.) Why should it be distributed with the operating system? Most users would have zero use for it. I believe the operating system should provide the hooks (file protection and record locking) but not the protocols. Leave something for the third parties to make money on! Those who need it, will buy it, why bloat the Amiga operating system? > Apple supplies networking with their Macintosh and even > includes the physical port with which to do it. > Networking support should be built into the file system > (as DECnet on VMS is), and the programs should not have to > worry about routing. The ability to cluster and/or remote > mount file systems should be included (i.e.: VAXcluster, > NFS, RFS) with the networking software. As of 2.0 networking support is built into the operating system at least at the filesystem level. I think that individual networking solutions should be provided by the third parties. I don't want to be in the situation where I am stuck with one networking protocol and networking device. I don't want to pay for networking hardware I don't intend to use. > > Overall, however, I am pleased with the Amiga line of computers and > still recommend them to all my friends. Unfortunately, many of them > want to buy NeXT computers (when they can afford them). > Your pleased and yet you do not wish to invest in any of the new technology? You stated that while the current amiga line is nice, you think the A1000 is suitable for your needs, and yet you ask for essentially a workstation. Commodore has not seen a nickel from you since 1985, and that is assuming you bought your A1000 new. To me, your arguments are a bit weak. You are saying to Commodore, please keep building new boxes and let me judge them. If I find them adequent I will drop a few bucks into them. While that is how most people buy, it is not a real incentive for Commodore to react positively to your letter. "Buy all you want, we will make more" applies to Commodore. :-) I think most people miss the boat when they talk about the Amiga. The miracle of the Amiga is power without the price. (Sorry Atari). Getting the most computer for the least amount of coins is what intriques me about Commodore and the Amiga. That should _never_ be forgotten by Commodore or by the users. You compared the Amiga to the NeXT and the Mac, and of course technically that is ok. Just remember the features that you have asked for would push the Amiga into the same price range as the NeXT and the high-end Mac's. Commodore is probably asking the question: Can we really afford to play in the workstation arena? High-end systems are wonderful, I certainly love my A3000, but at what point will the consumer say "at this price, I ought to buy a Sun!". Commodore has to be real careful and not let the perspective buyer ask this question. I thought you had a good letter basically, I just think that you should re-evaluate your opinion of the A3000. It has: - 32 bit memory - 2 megabytes of chip memory (why is 8 meg necessary?) - Ability to easily upgrade to a 68040 - AmigaDOS 2.0 - Built in de-interlacer - UNIX SVR4. On and on... Commodore built your dream machine. I believe action is stronger than words. Commodore answered your letter with the A3000 and the A3000T. Now, before June 31st comes, go "Power-up!". > > Eagerly awaiting your reply, > > > > Val Kartchner > -- > ____ ____ ____ |=============================================================| > \ \/ \/ / | "vi? Because I don't have a real editor." -- U*x user | > \Weber State/ |=============================================================| > \University/ |Oberon| Internet: val@csulx.weber.edu, val@net23.weber.edu | > \___/\___/ |Kenobi| Usenet: uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!bryce!netw23!val | > Computer Science |=============================================================| -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "The Most lopsided deal since ..." | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ================================================== "I protest Captain! I am not a merry man!" - Lt. Worf