Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!mintaka!churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc From: rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga bashing Message-ID: <1991Jun25.123841.1186@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 25 Jun 91 12:38:41 GMT References: <1991Jun20.200326.16487@bmerh409.bnr.ca> <1991Jun21.002542.19989@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1151@stewart.UUCP> Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The Internet Lines: 105 In article <1151@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >>OS/2, well, >>does the phrase, slow and bloated pig with no outstanding support >>ring a bell? >> > >Does the phrase, "ignorant goon with no clue as to what he's talking about" >ring a bell, Ray? OS/2 today (version 1.3) is small (much smaller than UNIX), >fast, and solid. It doesn't have as much support as DOS/Windows, or even UNIX, >but that doesn't mean that it's not a superior OS. Why don't you quote some >benchmarks or memory usage estimates, Ray, and then maybe your post will mean >something? Well, quoting from BYTE, it takes a 33mhz 386 with 4mb of ram to make the system usuable. Conclusion: OS/2 is bloated. (Im not saying Unix isn't, Unix is very bloated). I've read benchmarks on OS/2 1.0 and it was slow. OS/2 has no support, Unix already has the market. >> >>A $2000 386 system probably doesn't have decicated DMA-I/O >>(most likely it is using polled I/O which incurs a major performance >>hit on a multitasking multithreaded file system). >> > >Wrong. Every PC has DMA I/O. I run UNIX on the cheapest 386 possible, >and intense disk I/O going on in the background does not slow down the >machine significantly at all. It's not the most efficient system in the >world, but it sure isn't polled I/O. Every PC may have "general purpose DMA I/O" lines on the motherboard, but not every controller actually uses them. >> >>How come everytime someone mentions this card they quote a lower >>price? First it was quoted as $300, then $200, then $150, and now >>$100? >> > >Maybe that's because there have been so many improvements in VGA cards >recently, that prices have been going down? Today (6/24/91) a $200 VGA >card can display 1Kx768x8. A $300 VGA card can do all that and display >15-bit direct color graphics (32,768 colors) at 640x480 and 800x600. No, maybe it's because this is a very low performance card. I wouldn't want Xwindows running in 1024x768 with no co-processor. Especially X11R3. >> >>Since this board obviously doesn't have a co-processor can you >>imagine the refresh rate of something like X on a 1024x768x8 bit >>display? Some of these cheap 386 systems being sold are actually >>386's with a braindamaged re-packaging that makes the chip 16 bit. >> > >Ray, instead of imagining refresh rates, why don't you give it a try? >It's obvious you never have, so all your bashing is completely off base. >I run exactly the system you suggest, and I've never had to wait for the >screen to redraw; again, it's not the fastest system, but it's perfectly >usable. I don't have to imagine refresh rates. All I have to do is look at the amount of data being transfered and how fast the processor is. >> >>[Lots of hype about the A3000 and upcoming Amiga products] >> > >The 3000 is really a fantastic machine with superfast I/O and terrific >animation capabilities; I'd love to have one. However, it all depends >on what you want. If you're like me, and you don't care about sound or >video output, but you want a cheap UNIX system with lots of color at a >reasonable GUI resolution, then 386 systems with SuperVGA really make a >lot of sense. SuperVGA without , say a 34010, on UNIX does not make sense. I guess I am just spoiled by the Amiga's screen update rate. >> >>[Devil's Advocate mode] >>18 bit palette is not adequate for displaying fleshtones or >>grey-scale data! You only have 64 grey levels (6 bits) compared to the >>miracle of CD-I which has 256! VGA is not adequate, it's a hack! >>Fix the problem at the source, trash MS-DOS computers! >>[Devil's Advocate mode off] >> > >Well, well, I was waiting for the Real Ray to burst out. VGA is not adequate >for displaying fleshtones? Oh, and I bet you think the Amiga's 4096-color >video is? Why don't you fix the REAL problem at the REAL source -- switch >to DECAF! Why don't you READ the past threads in this group. I was parroting Marc Barrett and his "HAM is not adequate for fleshtones!" and Kevin's "You need atleast 256 grey levels!" Some people have no humor. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /