Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!ames!oliveb!sun!cmcmanis From: cmcmanis@sun.uucp (Chuck McManis) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac vs. Amiga Message-ID: <11991@sun.uucp> Date: Fri, 23-Jan-87 13:38:25 EST Article-I.D.: sun.11991 Posted: Fri Jan 23 13:38:25 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Jan-87 00:46:05 EST References: <241@elxsi.UUCP> Distribution: comp Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 63 Summary: Ignorance is no excuse Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:1650 comp.sys.mac:931 In article <241@elxsi.UUCP>, fisher@elxsi.UUCP (Chuck Fisher) writes: > > [ .. Actually he quotes from Dr. Dobbs but I've deleted that part ..] > Flame on: Although Amiga touts its multi-tasking capability, > how many programs are written to take advantge of it? I would > agree that "background printing" is desireable, but a Mac can > do that as well as an Amiga. Most of the work that I do on the > Mac are interactive in nature, and don't lend themselves that > well to true multitasking. Switcher and Servant provide most > of the capabilities needed to integrate foreground tasks in my > opinion. Unfortunately the above is a misconception held by many people. One of the nice things about multitasking on the Amiga is that it is built into the system. That means YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING SPECIAL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. Every program you run is added to the list of things to run as far as it is concerned it has the whole machine to itself. When you were in college did you have to do anything to make your programs take advantage of multitasking on the mainframe? Of course not, you ran your programs and other people ran their programs, and sometimes you would send things out to the printer while continuing to work on your code and the program printed *while you worked*. It is the same on the Amiga, if you want to start something from the workbench then just double click on it's icon, whatever you are currently running won't stop, it just keeps on chugging and the new application starts up. The system makes sure both programs don't grab the disk at the same time or write to the same file at the same time etc, you code just runs blythely along. And if your code wants to talk to other tasks on the machine it opens a message port and gives it a name, then any other task can look for that message port and start conversing. The only limit on all of this is memory, since there is no virtual memory capability if you run one program that takes all of memory then you cannot run another if it won't fit. > Much as I hate to say it, but the success of a machine is not > based solely on hardware, or the elegance of the user interface. > Instead, what guarantees success is the name and backing of the > manufacturer plus the willingness of third-party developers to > produce software. When enough machines have been sold and > enough software written, the machine then becomes a "success" > and continues to generate momentum for some time. The Mac has > achieved this level in the past 12 months, but I am afraid the > Atari and Amiga have not. This is an entirely true and entirely misleading statement. Yes in the last year the Mac has finally broken through that undefinable area that makes it a "real" machine. This was three years after it's introduction! One year after the Amiga and Atari were introduced *both* Atari and CBM sold more of their respective machines in the first year than Apple sold Mac's. They also have more software a year after their intro than the Mac did, and more peripherals. If they follow that trend, then in three years their combined installed base will be *eight* times the current Mac installed Base. But everyone knows projections are wildly unreliable things, it could be worse, it could be better. Apologies if the SNR of this message is below 50%... -- --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.