Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!samsung!know!daemon From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Give The Amiga Some Credit Already! Message-ID: <30203@know.pws.bull.com> Date: 18 Jun 91 22:27:42 GMT Sender: daemon@pws.bulL.com Lines: 257 csn!kessner!david@ncar.UCAR.EDU (David Kessner) writes: %In article <30189@know.pws.bull.com> you write: >Keep in mind that the new 4 MEG "standard" floppy drive IBM is installing in >the new machines REQUIRES a new floppy drive card. %Keep in mind that hard drive/floppy controllers for the PC run about $50, and %floppy only cards run $15. We expect the "4 meg floppy" controllers to run %about $20 once the Asian clone makers start production. So what? I was simply stating that a chip upgrade to make the Amiga able to handle these drives is no more "degrading" than having to plug a new drive card into an IBM. I would hardly expect such a chip to cost more than $30. So we need a chip upgrade, you have to plug in a new card. Which is worse? %Remember: the 4 meg floppies are not the issue. IBM PC's have supported %2 meg floppies for many years. How many times do I have to say this? THERE ARE "2" MEG drives out for the Amiga. If you want to pick then how about this...All I have to do is plug one of these drives into my Amiga. You need a floppy controller card if you don't already have one. How's that for lacking a certain ability? >Now, I'm no expert on human >thinking, but are we going to fault the Amiga for needing a chip upgrade but >not fault the IBM computers for needing a whole new floppy disk card? The same >logic can be used when talking about any of the 1 MEG+ drives that the IBM >computers use. %I do not understand this logic. Up until this statement you seemed to compare %the Amiga's 2meg floppy with the IBM's 4 meg drives. I don't believe that %this is a valid comparison. Your lost man. I was comparing the need of a hardware upgrade to handle HD drives on the Amiga to that of the IBM. People seem almost shocked that the Amiga needs a hardware upgrade to handle normal HD drives. So do other computers, so why b*tch about it? %Then you say, "the same logic can be used...[with IBM's] 1+meg drives." No, %it is not. PC Clones have supported 2meg drives (1.44 formatted) fully for %the past five years. Any controller that has been sold during this time %should (if it is any good) support these drives. %The bottom line is this: IBM's have supported 2 meg drives for quite some %time. The Amiga just recently supported them, but in a brain-dead fashon. The Amiga has "supported" them for over two years now I believe. "Brain-dead fashion"? Because the Amiga HD drives have a little extra hardware in them? What about all that extra hardware your average IBM needs on a card to handle ANY floppy? I'd call that dog-stupid, or IBM-stupid if you like. So the Amiga was a little slow to come out with a HD drive. Tell me, when will IBM come out with any of several hardware features the Amiga has? Dwell on one issue and we can pick at the IBM computers. >The last time >I checked, both Apple and IBM didn't ship 24 bit video boards standard with >their machines. %Do you really expect computers to come STANDARD with 24 bit video? I think %not. To date, the only computer that does (that I know of off hand) is %the Silicon Graphics-- and it is made for video. Neither NeXT, SUN, Apollo, %HP, NEC, IBM, Apple, DEC, Data General, Opus, MIPS, etc-- none of them make a %machine with 24 bit video as standard. Isn't that what I just said? The point I was making was that people compare 24 bit BOARDS on other computers to what the Amiga comes standard with. %That being said, there are many 24 bit video baords for the Mac, PC, Next, SUN, %etc. Need we name brands? What, if anything, does this have to do with the coversation? Did I say that they didn't? No, as a matter of fact I pointed that out. >You can buy 24 bit video boards for these machines, but you can ALSO >buy them for the Amiga. %You cannot run workbench on these boards. In fact, you can only run WB %on the standard display. Forget about 24 bit video, you cannot run WB on a %smaller 8-bit-plane display! That's the real pain. Why would I want to run Workbench on a 24 bit display? Not only would this chew up processor time, but it would serve no purpose. Just how many colors do you need to use this part of the GUI? I think what your trying to say here is that it isn't a solid part of the OS yet. Read before you leap. I mention the lack of it below... %On other systems you can (you need Windows on the PC to do this). >So where is Commodore falling behind in this respect? %Yes. The Amiga does not have device independance when it comes to video. What %good is a 1280x1024 24bit video display if all you can run on it is one %application. More of what I already noted, that Commodore is working on this. >OK, they need a 24 bit interfacing standard but I understand that they just >released it? If not, I know they are at least working on it. %A 24 bit interfacing standard is not what the Amiga needs. It needs the %device independance. These almost define the same thing, and do become the same thing when done properly. I was refering to both when I said "interfacing standard". >General Amiga Features- Many messages have been written about the aging of the >features found on every Amiga when compared to current day "standards". Tell >me, who is setting those standards? %These "standard" features are taken from what people come to expect from their %machines. Most of it is 'adopted' from what we like in UNIX computers, as %in virtual memory. There are other things that we realize is almost required %to make a reliable system, like memory protection. In your view. Some people favor the software method because of cost and other factors. Anyway, when is the last time you saw a UNIX system for under $1000 with the Amiga's features? Again, another user comparing features of a machine costing much more to that of all Amigas. %Just as an aside, the thing that pisses off a lot of us is the fact that %memory protection and virtual memory is strictly a software thing. The %A3000 has the hardware to make this possible, but because of the OS's inital %design these things will be difficult to make a reality (like the Mac's %"multitasking"). >I mean, what machines have those features at a comparable price to the Amiga? %Do you want it in alphabetical order, or in order of importance? Yes, I'd like to see your list IN THE PRICE RANGE OF THE AMIGA, from the 500 to the 3000. None of this $5000 workstation crap that has nothing to do with the vast majority of the Amiga line. You must include price in your comparisons. Leave out price and I can compare a Vic-20 to a Next Station. %There are several UNIX computers that are available in the under $5000 range %that offer these features. Most notably are the many 386/486 clones, several %SPARC clones, the NeXT Station, and several new HP machines. All of these %machines are about the same price as a similarly configured A3000. And none of these machines is in the same price range with any Amiga but, remotely, the 3000UX. I'm no expert on UNIX but I do understand that the 3000UX offers many features that the above machines don't FOR THE PRICE. It may lack a few too, but more than makes up for it in other areas. I'd like to hear your comparisons of the above machines IN THAT PRICE RANGE. >The general problem here is that people >tend to compare the Amiga to a machine (or even a 3rd party board for a >machine that doesn't even come standard with it) costing two or three times >the Amiga's price. %Not me. You just did, several times. >A good example of this being the < $1000 price range. If >the Amiga is so old then show me one machine under $1000 that has all the >features of the Amiga. %The low-end is where the Amiga shines, I cannot deny that. It is in the mid to %high end where the Amiga gets lost in the crowd. This is mainly because the %Amiga has not kept up in the operating system and video arena's. The A3000UX, %in it's current form, is a joke since it lacks many of the features that most %buyers consider minimal (a COLOR, HIGH-RES, X11r4 being one of them). I would expect you'll get a lot of mail for calling the 3000UX a "joke". I'm still waiting for that comparison/price comparison. And how far down is "low- end" to you? Last time I checked the < $1500 market a "joke". >Atari? Not even close, and that's why Atari sales are >dead. The Mac Classic? Don't make me laugh! Fact is people that nobody comes >close. Then there is the UNIX market....and on and on... %You ignore several things. One is the fact that some computers are better %suited for some tasks than others. Take MIDI, for instance. UNIX is just %about unuseable with MIDI because of the real-time nature of music. The Mac %has the best applications/hardware for music. PC's have good applications/ %hardware, but there are many "industrial grade rack-mountable PC's" as well %as many laptops (good for the musican on the move). The Atari ST has good %applications as well (Atari is to MIDI as Amiga is to video). There are %several 'good' Amiga MIDI applications, but they are not as high-quality or %numerous as other platforms. The bottom line is this: if I were putting You might want to do a little research. I can quote several of Atari's top music authors ported their software to the Amiga. True that the Atari may still hold the edge, but that edge is dulling against rocks as we speak. %a computer in a studio I would buy a Mac, but if I were taking one on the %road I would but a rack-mount PC or a laptop. The reason: These computers %get the job done better than the Amiga (at least for this task). %Note: In musical applications the Amiga's built-in sound is next to %worthless. Aside from sample-rate and 8-bit resolution, there is the number %of voices. It may be suitable for games and dinking around, but in a %professional studio four non-pannable voices are not enough. The Amiga %cannot reproduce 99% of the songs that I play. Once again we have a BOARD comparison to a STOCK comparison. Tell me who (he says like a broken record) IN THE PRICE RANGE OF THE AMIGA has better built-in sound? Last time I checked the Amiga had one of the best built-in sound chips around. The Amiga also has many new music boards to do professional work, so what? > The point I'm trying to make here is don't be so critical. %I don't think that it is folks being "critical", just observant. As I %mentioned, the Amiga really shines in the low-end market-- and I don't hear %many A500 owners expecting the high-end features. Where the Amiga is below %par, as in the high end (A3000), I hear lots of screaming for better video %boards, better memory management, etc. So in short, those who paid the money %and expect these features are the only ones really screaming (or it could be %those that would buy a high-end Amiga were it not for these features). The Amiga has "video boards" out for it. "Better memory management"? Take a look at the multitasking memory hog running on a lot of IBM computers and tell me that. Oh, you must mean a MMU? Isn't funny how stable the Amiga's multi- tasking is even without one. Makes you realize what a good OS can do for a computer. >True that there >are new video boards and such that are somewhat better than what the Amiga >comes with, but these are products that don't compete with the Amiga, both in >price and in coming standard with a machine. %Again, only the low-end Amiga's shine. In the high end, the standard A3000's %video is lack-luster when compared to other machines in the same price range. %In the higher-end market there is no such things as "standard" equiptment %since everyone specifies a system like, "Ok, I want XXX System with XXX type %video and XXX size/speed/type hard drive." >People tend to compare what they >can buy for an IBM or Apple to what the Amiga comes with standard. Why can't >you give your machine a little credit and compare what we can buy for the >Amiga to what you can buy for those machines, and what comes standard for the >price to what comes standard for those machines. The Amiga is one hell of a >machine, and nobody seems ready to change that. %Again, it is only a good machine in the low-end market. It just does not %compete anywhere else. (God, it sounds like a broken record.) Oh yea, your right. That 3000UX is a real dog. Everybody knows how junky DMA can be. And that fantastic speed of the OS, please! The 3000UX comes standard with a video board for better graphics. Tom Why purchase a MAC when an Amiga with the same CPU will run 99% of all __ MAC software..and FASTER at that?! The same can be said of the IBM and __/// Atari computers, and I can run those in a window. IBM's greatest sales \XX/ tool is ignorance on the consumer's part. IBM=(I)'ve (B)een (M)islead. A If you want to be popular then buy a MAC....If you want to be powerful M then buy an Amiga..and use all that money you save to buy friends. :') I Classic=B&W, no blitter, no DMA, almost no sound, almost no expansion, G price tag of $1000. Amiga 500=4096 colors, DMA galore, great sound, an A 86 pin expansion port, price tag of $500. Confused? Only the Amiga!!!!