Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: How 'Bout HyperCard!
Message-ID: <8805170742.AA28361@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 17 May 88 07:42:27 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 96


>This is my whole point.  People who one use one computer have often have
>blinders on.  An Amiga doesn't even keep up with a standard Mac let alone
>than Mac II.  I've used then side by side I know.  The Amiga should be better

	Uhhh... Bullshit.  First of all, don't even try to compare a 
standard Amiga with a Mac II ... for gods sakes the Mac II has got a 68020 in
it!  It is in a completely different procesor and price class.  As far
as comparing the Amiga to a 68000 Mac, I beg to differ.  Having run tests and
used both I see no such discrepancy.  In fact, taking the Amiga's worst
problem (floppy disk speed) the Mac+ writes files to floppies at about the
same speed.  And of course, one need not mention graphically oriented IO.

>the Mac software.  The Mac os is as far above the Amiga in richness and  
>robustness as the Amiga os is above the Atari ST os.  Of coarse I'm not
>talking about multi-taking here but the Mac also has good solutions for 
>multi-taking.  Even the Atari ST can do reasonable mutli-tasking.  Multi-

	Again, I say B.S.

>Take good Mac software and put it on a Mac II, the results can be breath 
>taking.  My chanage is not to give up the Amiga but for people to right the
>same kind of great code for the Amiga.  Good sound code can really out 
>preform hardware.  Then the good code on good hardware is a true winner. 

	Frankly, I am not impressed, and Hands-on use of the Mac II doesn't
exactly take MY breath away.  The only think impressive is the CPU and
CPU speed... what I see on a Mac II screen is very sluggish compared to its
potential.

>Don't depend of hardware to get the job done.  Soon the Amiga may be replaced
>with a machine that has twice the power (without specail hardware) for 1/2 the
>price. (Maybe even in a couple years)  Good code will port easy and soar,
>hardware dependent code will port hard and often just fade away.  Use your
>heads program great code and make the Amiga a winner! 

	I disagree.  That is, I agree that it is well to hide special
hardware but I disagree as to your definition of 'special hardware'.  What
is a CRT controller?  Do you want the processor to stuff the RGB out itself?
What is a Disk controller?  So now we extend it a little and have Audio
DMA, a more complex video controller, another processor, etc...  Frankly,
that is the future... first start with more specialized controllers and
then move on and add more general parallel processing capabilities.

	You might be able to reduce their advantage to a numerical factor,
but don't be deceived.  In many cases a factor of 2 can make the difference
between perceiving it as slow and perceiving it as fast.  What's the difference
between 20 mph and 40 mph?  30 and 60?  Get the picture....

>source level debuggers now, but in honestly both are far behind the Mac and
>IBM pc in tools.

	Correct.  What else is new?  I point out that the Mac and PC were
introd a couple of years before the Amiga.  I also point out that we are
beginning to catch up.  Your remarks are equivalent to somebody condeming
a computer introd two weeks previous because it doesn't have much commercial
software available for it.

>   Huh,  I own both an Amiga 1000 and Atari ST.  I'm porting Amiga code to
>the Atari right now.  I often run then side by side.  I know that the are
>many factors in speed but seldom does the Amiga beat the Atari.  I think a 
>lot of the Amiga speed loss is due to memory use.  Maybe if I put a couple
>megs of memory on the Amiga it would inprove a lot but as it is now a 512k
>Atari kills a 512k Amiga, no doult about it.  Also I never seen disk drives
>as slow as the Amiga's.  A the Amiga graphics and sound often beat the ST's
>thought, but not it's speed.   The Amiga should be faster but it isn't.
>It really fustrates me!  So come on lets write better code for the Amiga!  

	I can laugh at that .. excuse me a moment ... ok, I'm back.  Frankly,
you are dead wrong here.  In terms of raw cpu speed the atari is just a 
little faster, and that is assuming you are NOT in monochrome mode.  I find
the well integrated enviroment the Amiga provides is just as fast if not
faster than all other machines of equivalent stature (read: Atari/Mac.  IBM
is a lower form of life as far as I'm concerned).  Perhaps *YOU* should
invest a little money into a few solutions, of which there are many, instead
of bitching about your problems.  At least when I bitch I create or find my own
solutions.  I personally use REZ and FACC and since then have never 
had to wait for my floppies.  Oh, and by the way, I do not currently own
a hard drive.

	For less CPU bound programs, the hardware support and low OS overhead
easily outweigh such minor processor speed differences.

>After years of buying, programming and using mirco's I don't think there is
>any logic as to why programmers like one machine and not another.  People
>are different I guess is the only reason.  I heard great points for all 
>machines.  
>                                        Wayne Knapp 

	After years of buying, programming, and hacking micros, I find that
I have very STRONG opinions as to MY FAVORITE machine... so much so that
I find my particular machine a thousand fold better choice then other
machines at the time I purchased it (and it's still holding its place after a 
couple of years).  We all know which machine *that* is ....

						-Matt