Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site vax2.fluke.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!kurt From: kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) Newsgroups: net.micro.atari,net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga and ST (important comparisons!) Message-ID: <961@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 11:35:51 EDT Article-I.D.: vax2.961 Posted: Tue Oct 8 11:35:51 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 11-Oct-85 08:31:01 EDT References: <377@eneevax.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Lines: 44 Xref: linus net.micro.atari:1241 net.micro.amiga:4216 I am confused. I am hearing wildly contradictory information about the amiga and st. Just for instance The st has fast floppy disks and a 1.33 Mb/Sec DMA channel...The amign doesn't have DMA disks. (377@eneeval.UUCP and elsewhere) The amiga has a custom programmable DMA controller (the 'copper') and no less than 25 channels of DMA including video, disk, and audio. (BYTE article). OK, what is true. The st definitely has DMA. Does the amiga use DMA for floppies? How fast is it? Running the BALL demo, with a 3-D ball rolling and bouncing, and making noise, less than 8% of the CPU is being used. (BYTE article) The amiga's video controller takes up too many cycles and the amiga's clock rate is lower. The amiga has much less horsepower for computing. (377@eneevax.UUCP) The amiga does run at 7.8Mhz vs 8Mhz for the st. How much of the rest is true? The amiga OS is full of bugs. (377@eneevax.UUCP) AmigaDOS is a version of TRIPOS from Canbridge. AmigaDOS was written by Metacompco (various) If AmigaDOS is a version of a longstanding OS, how come it is full of (presumably serious) bugs? Which rumor is true here. Furthermore, I have personally crashed TOS on the st just fooling around with it at a computer store. It took me 10 minutes before my first crash. Is the amiga getting undeservedly bad press here? Doesn't TOS ever crash? Also, a note about porting the multitasking OS9 to the ST: You will give up GEM if you port OS9 probably. It seems like it will be difficult to link GEM to OS9 and presumably difficult to duplicate its function. This means an OS9 will only be useful to hacker types (like us all I suppose). How about some additional opinions? -- Kurt Guntheroth John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. {uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurt