Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Open your eyes (Was about Hyper'Card)
Message-ID: <8805190833.AA06348@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 19 May 88 08:33:57 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 250


>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

	I have to hand it to you, you are really trying *hard* to 'prove'
your point.

>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 raise my hand!  Everything but the Atari.  But of course, that 
doesn't mean my opinion of it isn't valid....  Hell, when I decided to
buy a new computer I examined both the Amiga and Atari quite closely.  Even
after buying my Amiga, having an interest in ALL micros in existance, I
have attemped to give myself an understanding of the Atari's system 
software (OS and support).  I see garbage.  I've talked at length to friends 
and I hear garbage.  I read comp.sys.atari.st and I hear garbage and 
complaints.  I've read every friggin holy war argument between Amiga people
and Atari people, I've look at Atari and note that they resort to blatent 
lies and deceptions in an attempt to bolster their line, they introduced
their line early to get a jump on the Amiga ... too early, and still haven't
fixed the problems.

	But most notably, I hear arguments that relate to the Amiga of
three years ago, not the Amiga today.  And what do I say?  Get A life!  And
while I have no intention of refuting everything you say (recognizing that
your message is essentially an opinion, as is all our messages).

>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.

	Perhaps many of the screen hacks do, demos and such, but I have yet
to see a professional PD or commercial program that relies on the underlying
hardware to the extend you are saying.  Rely on the existance of the 
intuition, graphics, and other libraries yes, but the cases where a program
requests use of, say, HAM or EHB mode, can hardly be cause to declare an
entire program hardware dependant.  After all, we are talking about a very
small module of the program.

	The only *real* definition of being 'hardware dependant' in the
world is essentially 'it would be difficult to port the program to another
computer because of this'... ALL programs are hardware dependant in one 
sense or another.   I see no such difficulty in the majority (99.9999...%)
of non-demo/non-screenhack Amiga programs.

	The Amiga's library structure effectively hides most, if not all
hardware dependancies for most functions a professional or commercial
quality program might want to use.  You can hardly call a program 
dependant on the blitter if it makes a call to ScrollRaster().

>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. 

	As is true for all computers.  I've seen bad code on everything from
an HP3000 to UNIX to ANY microcomputer you can name.  You have no point here
except perhaps to hint that you think the *majority* of Amiga programs are
not written well... A statement which is quite incorrect.

	Good for you.  I have some experience in programming also, having
been doing it seriously since 7th grade, and I now earn my living at it 
also.

	So what?  If experience is all that matters to you, then there are
more 'experienced' people on this net then either of us, with equivalent
opinions even.

: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. 

	This is a standard misconception, one I've heard from the very 
beginning (incidently, brought up in comp.sys.atari.st).  'Other' people
have got it in their minds that because the Amiga has a blitter, because the
Amiga can handle lots of things in hardware that are done in software on
other machines, that this means programs written for the Amiga are 
DEPENDANT on that hardware.  Read my lips: B U L L S H I T.  Remember that.

	You are insulting a lot of people by such a blatent generalization.
Not only that, but your premise is based on a rumor brought about by hard
feelings.  You are taking a couple specialized display oriented programs
(e.g. DPaint, other video intensive stuff) and not even looking at all the 
other stuff that's out there (compilers, Tex, XCad, etc....).  And if you
aren't doing that, then you ought to explain your reasoning.

>> 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.

	I'm amazed that you are amazed.  I'm not amazed, and I've got 
a friend of mine who's a Mac nut with a Mac II even!

>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

	I agree.  The best thing going for the Mac is its resource system.
But I don't see how these 'great' programs say I'm wrong.  You think I
don't recognize the existance of great software?  I recognize it as much
as I recognize the existance of bad software. 

>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!  

	In fact, I am... resources that is.  I guess that means I get
energized.

>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. 

	Fool around with an Amiga running the new fast filesystem on a 
harddisk and you'll find the 500K+/sec transfer rate quite worthwhile.
Bad example?  Well, let me put it this way.  I don't own a harddisk, I find
changing floppies on an Amiga a sluggish but it really doesn't effect how
I work on my Amiga.  I find the speed of floppies to be plenty fast enough
with the proper utilities installed (FACC and REZ).

	By the way, where did you learn english?

	As far is your statement 'updated faster than you can see'... I
agree.  WHEN something is updated faster than I can see I don't call it
sluggish.  What does that have to do with the argument?  Are you relating
the concept to the Atari in general?  If so, I disagree.

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

	Ah, I see, so you are saying that because EHB and HAM don't
exist anywhere else we should not use them?  By that thinking you want us
to reduce our programs to standards attainable on most machines of the same
class..... And I suppose the programs you write for your Atari don't assume
the dimension and color capabilities of your machine?

	And how many programs do you know of that actually use HAM and EHB?
Almost none use EHB and a couple use HAM but also allow 'normal' resolutions.
In fact, due to its nature, HAM is used almost solely for pictorial output
(static pictures or animations), which reduces to simple subroutines in
a program ... quite easy to change over to other more standard resolutions,
which is all you care about since binaries on one machine aren't expected
to run verbatim on the other machine.  In fact, of all the programs I've 
seen only one is specifically dependant on HAM as being an integral part
of the program.

	And you are using HAM and EHB as an example to prove your point? 
Bad example; think up another one.


>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.   

	Maybe your code.... all I can say here is that it's true in
some cases, but a damn lie in most cases.  This statement is general and
applies to a few programs on every computer that exists.

>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. 

	Uh huh.  Do you want to know the last time I touched the blitter
hardware directly?  About two years ago.

	You are right in that the real battle is in software.  Hardware only
increases the possibilities in one's ultimate goal.  You are wrong in applying
a general argument 'These people write better code than those people' to
the Amiga community as a whole.  HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?  It isn't possible to
apply such an argument to any sufficiently large group. 

	This one misconception appears to be the core of your entire argument.

>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.

	Well then.  You say it's slower, I say it's faster.  The entire
comp.sys.atari.st group will probably back you, and the entire comp.sys.amiga
group will probably back me.

	The two of us have different experiences, thus two opinions.

	end of Discussion.

>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.  

	No I do not.  I *do* have room to talk.  Just because I don't have
an Atari on my desk doesn't mean I haven't fiddled with one or three.  I'm
not 100% happy with my Amiga either, but more happy with it than any other
micro.  Obviously I can't say I have more experience with an Atari than
you do, that would be utterly wrong.

	But because I do not does not mean you are automatically right.


>> 	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.
>

	You keep on telling me I should buy an Atari and will find out
for myself that you are right.  Yet, I keep up on comp.sys.atari.st, and
after comparing discussions between it and comp.sys.amiga for the past 3 
years, I find no compulsion whatsoever to waste my money.

	I look at the programming models for the Atari and Amiga, and the
Atari looks like a !@#$ IBM-PC, with the graphics support software slapped
on as an afterthought, no multitasking in any true sense of the word,
and little support.  You expect ME to give up multitasking?  That's a laugh.


>> I have very STRONG opinions as to MY FAVORITE machine... so much so that
>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 

	Open my eyes and see where it is weak.  Gosh, I guess you don't
know much about me.  My first year on comp.sys.amiga was spent essentially
flaming C-A on dozens of topics, all related to problems I saw with my 
Amiga.  Guess what?  Most of those problems are fixed.

	Now you open your eyes.  I'm sure comp.sys.atari.st would be
thrilled if you posted there... why don't you move your comments to
that group.

					-Matt