Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!kessner!david From: david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Give The Amiga Some Credit Already! Message-ID: <1991Jun19.085607.27101@kessner.denver.co.us> Date: 19 Jun 91 08:56:07 GMT References: <30203@know.pws.bull.com> Organization: Kessner, Inc. Lines: 320 In article <30203@know.pws.bull.com> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: >%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? > 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? > 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? >%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. Ok, lets put this in perspective. You seem to think that the drive controller cards in the PC are a big deal. In one of the paragraphs I quoted above, you seem to imply that some folks don't have floppy controllers ("You need a floppy controller card if you don't already have one...") In the traditional design of a PC, only the bare bones of the system are on the motherboard and everything else is on cards (drive controllers, video, etc). Currently, floppy controllers are places on the same card as hard drive controllers because that's the most logical place for them and it adds about $5 to the cost of the board. This has been so common that it is really considered STANDARD. It is so standard that all controllers that have been sold in the past five years support 2 meg floppies (1.44 meg formatted). What this means is that 2 meg floppies on the PC is very painless. Now, if all you has to do is swap a chip to make an Amiga support 2 meg drives then there would not be an issue. Rather, you have to find one of these strange two speed floppy drives that are no-where near standard. All in all, I would rather deal with standard hardware. >>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. I have never in my life compared a 24 bit video system with the standard Amiga display. I compare them with the 24 bit displays on the Amiga. In the same vein, I compare 8 bit displays on the PC/MAC/UNIX with Amiga 8 bit displays (a.la. U of L board). >%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... My, how ignorant we are. Humph! It is not just 24 bit displays, it is even the 8 bit boards. Sure it would chew up co-processor time, but not many folks make 24 bit displays without a fast co-processors (usually 34010/34020's, 29K, i860's etc). In fact, if you are counting, the standard blitter in the A3000 cannot support these devices because (ignoring speed all together) these displays need 3-4 meg of video RAM-- much more than the 2 meg of CHIP RAM. Sure, 24 bit workbench screens would be a little overkill (but I can think of where they would be useful), but 8 bits is minimum for me-- and I still cannot run WB on it! It's not that I am saying that "it is not a solid part of the OS yet", but more like, "Support for device independant displays was never designed into the OS from the start." I dare say that in the next four years you will not see an 8-bit-video Amiga running workbench (unless that board actually uses the blitter rather than something like a 34010). > 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. No. I have said many times (of which you did not quote), that the Amiga really shines in the low end market (less than $1000). As you probably expected, I cannot find ANY UNIX computer for less than $1000, much less one with the Amiga's features-- but I am not debating this. What I do compare is machines with similar price/features as the A3000, not the low end A500. For instance, I compare the A3000 with other machines in the $3500 to 4500 price range like the cheap UNIX boxes, NeXT's, etc-- putting in some lee-way for drive/RAM/video configurations. This type of comparison is quite fair. I don't compare the A3000 with a RS/6000, SPARCstation 2, etc. >>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. Ok, Mr. Big Shot. You asked for it. As I already mentioned (and you already forgot), I think the Amiga has the low end market so I will not bother mentioning that price range. What I will do is compare several machines with an A3000, C='s top of the line. I will include machines up to $5000 since it's only fair-- adding RAM, Eithernet, good video to the A3000 would more than make up for this difference. I also with to imply a fudge factor of about plus or minus $500 since prices vary more than that much from one state to another (also, a difference of $500 is not that big when you are looking at several thousands of dollars). That being said: 386sx, 20mhz, 8meg RAM, 200 meg drive, standard stuff (VGA, mouse, 1.44meg floppy, 2 serial ports, one parallel, etc). And UNIX. This goes for about $3200. It's slower than the A3000, but it has all the feature of real UNIX-- with a REAL X11r4 server rather than the brain-dead version that comes with the $7000 A3000UX. Run's X-Windows at 1024x768 256 colors. Same as above, but with a 386/25, $3400. CPU roughly as fast as the A3000, slower disk I/O and Video. Same as above, but with 33mhz CPU and 64K of cache, $3700. CPU is signifigantly faster than A3000. Same as above, but with 25mhz 486, $4300. CPU is about twice as fast as the stock A3000. For 34010 board, yeilding 1024x768 256 color displays with speed that is faster than the A3000's blitter. Add $700. I offer the several configurations for comparison only. It shows that you can get a 386/25 UNIX box with 34010 for about the same price as a 8 meg A3000 and the 3000 still does not offer comparable video. There is no comparison with the A3000UXD. NeXTStation, 8meg, 105 meg HD, a 56001 DSP, Ethernet, 25mhz 040, and a high-res grayscale monitor. $4995 List price. I believe that added features of this machine (040, dsp, ethernet) more than make up for the added $1000 in cost. A similarly configured A3000 would cost well over $5000. There are several other SPARC Clones right about $5000 which are configured similarly to the NeXTStation, but lack the DSP. These are just out and are expected to drop to $4000 by years end. All of these machines offer better memory/system management, device independance, and non-kludged HD floppy drives. > 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. In the price range of the A3000UXD ($7000-8000 list) you can get 486/33's with the EISA bus (roughly equal to the Zorro III in speed) and still have money left over for a 34010 board. This would be twice as fast as the A3000UXD (roughly), have faster video, and great disk performance. There is also the Color NeXTStation's with larger hard drives, or Color Sparc's. All are faster than the A3000UXD and have a more robust version of X Windows. The problem with the A3000UX is the version of X that ships-- there are several problems. First, it is X11R3 rather than the faster R4. Second, it is BLACK and WHITE, not even grey scale. And third, it's resolution is very limited (700x??? with overscan) in a world where 1024x768 is MINIMAL for X. There are two ways to fix this: Get the U of L board, or get Amiga UNIX version 2.0. Neither is out yet, although C= keeps dangling them in front of us. We cannot even get a demo U of L Board to show clients! I will not consider VAPORWARE. Imagine showung a bad black and white display workstation and a high-res-color Next side by side. Which would you buy? The NeXT of course, and so do the buyers. (If C= is listening, I know several Amiga dealers that will not show the UX simply because they are ashamed of the X. They would be very pleased to see a demo U of L board, hint hint.) >>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. No I did not. Please re-read. Again, I am not even thinking about the low-end market, since we agree there. BTW, my definition of low end is about $1200 on down. High end is $3500 on up to about $10,000. Above that you are in GOD class. > 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. I agree with you here. I am sure that the market will level out as good applications are written for new platforms (and bail out of old ones). But right now there is a huge advantage to using a Mac for MIDI over the Amiga. This is a lot like desktop publishing several years ago. Everything was for the Mac, but you can do good DTP on just about any computer now. >%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? No, you are wrong. I was comparing the suitability of machines, and used MIDI as an example of where the Amiga might not be the right choice. I have had similar discussions with 'others like you' and the next thing to be brought up is the Amiga's internal sound and how it can be used to 'preview' the work. In an attempt to cut that off at the pass, I put in the little 'Note:'. I should have called it "As an aside:", it would have been more obvious. I fail to see how you can call it a "BOARD vs STOCK" comparison, since the Amiga's sound was not compared with ANYTHING. I was simply stating why the Amiga's internal sound really isnt useable in the professional world (even just to preview the work). > 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. Yes, the Amiga has video boards. I might actually give a hoot when there is a 1024x768x256 display running WB. Yes, better memory management. Things like virtual memory and memory protection is nice. But even more down home, how about using the MMU in the 030 to un-fragment RAM? Don't you just hate it when you have 500K free but it is broken up in 50K chunks? I have looked at multitasking under MS-DOS (Windows), and can still say that the Amiga needs memory protection. MS-DOS is stupid and doesn't make any baring on this discussion... Compared to machines with memory protection, AmigaDOS is not stable at all. When watching several friends program they reboot about every hour during software testing. When not programming, they reboot due to gurus about once every six hours. Otherwise, they reboot about once every six hours due to memory fragmentation. My computer has been running for at least six months (24 hours a day with several users) and has only rebooted twice because of power failures. My 'ballpark' figure says that it's several orders of magnitude more reliable. > 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. Yes, it is. Compare the A3000UX with a SPARC Clone of the similar price. The SPARC is about twice as fast as the 25mhz 030. It comes STANDARD with 1024x768x256 video. It's bus is roughly as fast as Zorro III (It uses SUN's S-Bus) Now, compare it with a Color NeXTStation, at $7500: 25mhz 040 is at least 2 to 3 times faster than the A3000UXD. 1120x832 16 bitplane video. A DSP for those compute intensive signal analisys applications, and CD quality sound. No DMA problems here. How about the 486/33 EISA machine with 34010, at $7500: The CPU is 2 to 3 times faster than the 25mhz 030. 1024x760 256 color video with a REAL co-processor. Overkill on the DMA with the EISA bus (forget the ISA bus). Gee, lets look at the A3000UXD, at $7500 (or so): CPU is several times slower than others listed here. 700x??? BLACK & WHITE video. DMA is average. > Tom -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | Reunite PANGEA! Compuserve? Isn't that some sort of FIDO BBS? |