Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!tekig5!wayneck
From: wayneck@tekig5.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Open your eyes (Was about Hyper'Card)
Message-ID: <2777@tekig5.TEK.COM>
Date: 18 May 88 20:00:51 GMT
References: <8805170742.AA28361@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 146

Okay people, if you don't program anything other than an Amiga you don't have
much room to talk.  When I say a ST is faster hands down, I mean it.  I have
both machines sitting side by side, if anyone knows I should.  How many of
you have written code for IBM pc's, Atari's (8 and 16 bit), Apples and Amigas.
I'm not a Mac expert so I back down of some of the Mac things. (Except that
the Mac II graphics are slow, that is just untrue.  The Mac II is the most
responsive windowing system I've ever used, even better than the Suns around
here.  Like it or not Apple did a good job. Not cheap though)

I'm not trying to put down the Amiga.  The Amiga is a good computer, I even
own one!  What I saying is that a lot of Amiga code seems to depend on the
extra Amiga hardware to get the job done even at the sake of doing a poorer
job than what can be done in plain software alone.

Some great Amiga programs have been written, some code could be better.  I 
have some experience in programming as I've been doing it for 12 years and
earn my living at it. 

If Amiga programmers would put thier effort into writing good sound code, code
that is well thought out instead of code that uses all kinds of gee whiz   
hardware tricks, the Amiga would really shine.  Other than general hardware
like bitmaps, sampled sound generator and such, I believe the code should be
blind to special hardware.  Let the os use the hardware but don't tie the 
general code down with stuff like copper lists.  Use the hardware to make the
machine look more powerful to a program.  Let the program think there are 12
bit planes, don't think HAM.  See what I mean. 

The Amiga can be a great machine, it just needs a little polishing. 
  
                             Wayne Knapp

In article <8805170742.AA28361@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
> 
> 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.

  Test are one thing, finished programs another.  I'm amazed by just how 
good a lot of Mac software is.  Amiga software can also be that good, just
a lot of it isn't yet.
> 
> >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.

Look at the programs, Hyper'Card, MacPaint, Labview, on and on.  Many great
programs say you are wrong.  I think the true power of the Mac os is in the
handling of it program resouces.  Text, graphics, controls can all be changed
without recompiling by using a simple program call Res-Edit.  Also icons and
every thing are in the same file.  The whole system is neat and well thought
out.  That is what has help the Mac.  Of coarse these things could all be
done on the Amiga.  Maybe someone is.  If so more power to them!  

> 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.
  
I think CPU speed has little to do with it.  The software is sound so faster
CPU just make the good software run better.  Also when things are updated 
faster than you can see how can you call it sluggish.  Change floppies on an
Amiga, that's sluggish. 

> >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.
>
Come on, do you think I that stupid.  Bitmaps are one thing, halfbrite and
HAM another.

> 	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....
> 
Yes, you are finally using your head!  Many times I've seen improvements on the
order of 5 to 50 times by improving the code.  Try to do that cheaply with
hardware.  In fact that is why the Amiga isn't amazing compared to the Mac or
ST.  Because not enought good clean thought has been put into the code.   
Thinking like: I'll just use the blitter instead of adaption my code to this
better data structure, is going to hurt the Amiga not help it.  If the software
is great the great hardware can only help it.  The real battle is in software
not hardware.  The Amiga has many good features.  So let the software access
these, don't make the software depend on them to run. 

> >   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.
> 
Laugh all you want, but it is true.  The Amiga is often much slower than my
ST.  It shouldn't be, but it is.  They sit side by side so I know.  There is
a lot more to it than just CPU speed.  I think that some of the differnce is
that there must be some poor/slow code in the Amiga os or something.

DO YOU use the machines side by side.  If not you have no room to talk.  I'm
not lying.  I want the Amiga to do well, I like it a lot, but I'm not 100%
happy with it.  

> 	For less CPU bound programs, the hardware support and low OS overhead
> easily outweigh such minor processor speed differences.
> 
Run the machines side by side for over a year, write programs on both, you
may be shocked at what you'll learn.

> 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 ....
> 
It is good that you like the Amiga.  So you know the Amiga's strong points.
Open you eyes and see where it is weak.  Look at other computers that do 
better then improve the Amiga.  The Amiga has more potential than any computer
I've ever seen, so don't you think it is time to tap it?

                                          Wayne Knapp