Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!uunet!infonode!mcclend From: mcclend@infonode.ingr.com (William D McClendon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Why are Amigaoids hell bent on proving the Amiga is better ? Message-ID: <1991Jun28.142132.8282@infonode.ingr.com> Date: 28 Jun 91 14:21:32 GMT References: <3104@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au> <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL Lines: 62 ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >In article mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG >(Mike Schwartz) writes: >>2) Amigoids have to fight the image that the Amiga is a game >> machine, which it is (and isn't). But why being a game >> machine is a problem escapes me, because most of what makes a >> machine a great game machine also makes it a great business >> machine (and video machine and multimedia machine and...) > Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium >reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high >score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that >you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you >choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. > In a game machine, speed counts, price counts, but reliability >can suffer, and it usually does. (I once asked Dave Haynie, hardware >dude of some renown, what reliability features were present in the >Amiga, and his reply was that OFS is replete with robust features that >made tools like DiskSalv possible. I found it quite telling that this >hardware guy pointed out a software feature.) > Businesses have to choose their risks carefully. In the case >of a "game" computer versus a "business" computer, the business >*should* choose the computer with the least risk involved. A game >computer is risky, so it typically loses. > On the other hand, a game computer's market is extremely >price-sensitive, and so the game computer is typically very cheap >(from the absense of reliability features, no doubt). This may win it >a few business desks when cost is a major factor. >-- >Richard Krehbiel, private citizen ckp@grebyn.com Whoa there dude. Lets have some more experience here on your part. I have used many machines. Many OS's. I have never run across a main stream (or branch :)) computer of ANY nature that accomplished data integrity via hardware. Hardware, EVERONES runs through diagnostics on reboot. Some more intense than others. If the memory, subsystems, etc. are functional, things continue. Data loss has more to do with the data being safe on the storage media, period. I will give you three guesses how this is accomplished: You are right! SOFTWARE SOFTWARE SOFTWARE! Either the OS syncs to disk, or the application syncs to disk, writes only at exit. Some do it for you, others let you do it. Ever used UNIX? Seen what it goes through for the filesystems when it comes up after a crash? EVER seen this on a PC? On a Mac? Amiga is in exactly the same boat. >(Who needs a fancy .signature?) Just my "two sense" worth (hands, and eyes) HA HA