Some Key Amiga and Amiga Monitor-oriented links:
Amiga Monitor Main Index
Amiga Web Directory
Dear Mike,
Thanks for clearing my head! I read your 'Fork in the Road' article in The Amiga Monitor magazine just after being completely shocked by the Gateway news. As soon as I heard it I began fantasizing about monster 'Power Amigas' rising up and taking over the industry with a brute force machine created using Gateway's deep pockets. Your article was like a deep, cleansing breath. I have to say I agree with you right on down the line, once I actually THOUGHT about the situation.
The Amiga has to evolve from its own 'genetic material', not be mutated to be like the 'standard' so that it can try and compete with Wintel machines. The things that make the Amiga unique will continue to be assets and not liabilities only if they are cultivated in the level-headed, clear-eyed manner you outlined in this article. I certainly hope a copy of this ends up in Gateway's hands, and that Petro & company also understand these principles.
Regardless, things will probably get VERY interesting from here.
Thanks again!
Mike Masquith
Thanks for the "Measure of a Platform" article in Monitor 1_8. I am going to link to that article from my site (www.mint.net/~troberts), because you said it in better words than I could have. It should be up in about a week.
In Greenery...
Tom Roberts
Mr. Webb,
I read your articles in the March issue of The Amiga Monitor, The Measure of a Platform and The Fork in the Road. In the first article, you gave an enlightening approach to the area on Wintel domination.
Your second article is the article that made me sit back and think. I have read people's opinions on how the Amiga should be developed from now on. Some want it a generic box with off-the-shelf parts. Others want it to be unique. In your article, I finally found someone from the old school who believes in the uniqueness of the Amiga. The amazing thing is that you could back up your statements with solid facts. Something I don't see often. One statement that I have always believed in from day one is that the Amiga is superior in both hardware and software, and that both work together to provide a superior machine. Taking away the custom hardware from the OS would prohibit any separate component from being associated with the Amiga.
Have you thought of sending these articles to the higher-ups at Gateway 2000 or Amiga Technologies (International)? It is important to pressure Gateway to continue the tradition of the Amiga as it was originally intended. One thing we don't want is for Gateway to directly or indirectly put people on the Amiga project who are brainwashed with the Wintel systems. That would certainly infect the Amiga. We need people who have experience with the Amiga. What would you think about Dave Haynie (hardware), Andy Finkel (software and OS), or Carl Sassenrath (OS) coming back to help develop the Amiga again? These guys know what the current technology is. They could help the Amiga get back on track.
I applaud you for your well-written articles. Keep up the good work.
Stuart Bachamp
Thanks for the comments, both of you, as well as all the others out there. It's good to see that my ideas were well-received. As I've said many times, the Amiga need only stick to its strengths, and it will find a place for itself in the computer industry. Those strengths are what have made it so great all along. Abandoning that foundation could very well spell the final downfall, for many reasons (concerning not only philosophy, but also practicality). The tools to rebuild this platform exist; we must only use them, and use them wisely.
I think it's a good sign that Amiga International is remaining a subsidiary. That will allow people who have been involved with the platform to work on it in the future. As far as those specific names go (Haynie, Finkel, Sassenrath, and certainly others like them), I would be all for seeing them return to work on the Amiga once again. They certainly know the Amiga inside and out, having been many of the people who actually made it what it is.
Michael Webb
Editor-in-Chief
One point US-based info on elecronic computers omit is that the first one was Colossus, a British development. The year was 1940 and the Germans were chasing all Brits and Free French from France. Later, 6 days before D-Day 1944 Colossus II went online with 2500 radio tubes. The first Colossus (1500 tubes) was used to break the secret code of the Germans known later as Enigma. The code changed every day... of course the US had joined the fray after the Japanese invitation via Pearl Harbour. As they say the rest is history...
Keep up the good work guys..
Bill Dunn
I have a question about your article on search engines:
Why does everyone insist on describing Yahoo as a search engine???
Search engines are generally regarded as automated routines that search the entire web cataloging pages. Yahoo does not do this. Yahoo's search feature is only a supplement to its own listings. It's not meant to be a web-wide search function.
John
John,
You have a valid point. However, search engines all search a database compiled by another program. When you request information from any of the others, the search of the web is not done in real time. Instead, the search is made of the precompiled database. The fact that the database compiled for Yahoo is smaller than the others does not mean it is not a search engine. I hope this explains why Yahoo is lumped in with the others.
Danny Green
Staff Writer
Mike,
Just writing this in response to your answer to Chris Owen's letter in AM1_7 entitled "Games Support" which in particular spoke about the A\Box.
"To those companies that believe the Amiga's technical strengths are not sufficient for modern games, I beg to differ. While there's no question that you couldn't run Quake on a 256K A1000, many Amiga users these days have at least 68020's or 68030's, and an increasing number are upgrading to 68040's and 68060's."
Inherent in this statement is the implication that a port of Quake could run on an '020 or above. I have played Quake on machines ranging from a 486/100MHz to a Pentium Pro/200Mhz and had a lot of fun doing so. However, a 486/100 is quite slow for the task giving low frame rates in the lowest resolution (~4-8fps (estimating based on timing tests)) which is only just playable. This processor is approximately equivalent to an '040/100 or an '060/66 if they existed (I have heard rumours of the '060/66's existence but no facts). And this and similar games are CPU-*hungry* applications with Quake relying *heavily* on the FPU as well. So yes, the code could be made to run on an Amiga but the speed of the game would be totally unbearable.
"Furthermore, any of the Amiga's chipsets provide plenty of power for most games that use low-resolution screens, while the increasingly popular graphics cards improve things further. To unilaterally declare that Amigas are not powerful enough for modern games is hogwash."
But the definition of a modern game is one that breaks new ground for graphics, speed, game play, and the overall experience. The Amiga doesn't cut it in the first two categories when compared to other platforms. I first played Doom on an 386/SX16. That was fun but I was using a window about 2" across on a low res screen so when I got access to faster machines I couldn't look back. My A4000/'030/25 is probably twice as capable as the machine mentioned above but it is too slow for my spoiled tastes to run games like Fears or Alien Breed 3D, the demos of which I have tried. And this is right in the middle of the Amiga models you mentioned. Quake is now over 1 year old - an eternity in computer time - so this would be a good example of a modern game that the Amiga scene currently has *no* chance of beating with current systems.
Aurora Works, covered in the January issue of AM, is a good example of a company that realizes this, as they recently announced their commitment to developing game software for top-of-the-line Amigas.
Yeah, "top of the line Amigas". I.e. ones that have a chance of running a Doom clone (or beater) like AD3D but nothing that will touch Quake for quality.
In conclusion to all of this, I agree that we should strongly encourage software developers of all kinds, games included, to develop for emerging Amiga and Amiga-based platforms; but also, to continue to support current Amiga owners. If enough people start contacting major software companies, they are at least guaranteed to notice.
Yes, encourage development for PowerUp or possible compatible accelerators as they appear and for new machines like the A\Box or PIOS ONE. But as far as current models go don't think that any truly modern games *could* be written. This doesn't mean that no new games will come out that are any good - just that they will not be modern in comparison to other platforms.
PS. I still enjoy playing Deluxe Galaga but that is far from modern.
PPS. At the risk of labouring a point, I used Quake a lot as an example but I do not think it is the be-all-and-end-all of games - it is just a good example of a modern one.
PPPS. I am still contemplating further investment in my A4000 system when I learn more of the software being written for the PowerUp cards. But someone would also have to bring out a Voodoo-based graphics card for my game playing! :)
cu
Matthew Suter
In my statement about Quake not running on an A1000, but that many Amigas do have 68020's and above, I intended no such implication as that Quake could run on such a system. I was using (the precise literary term escapes me at the moment) a blunt exaggeration in terms of Quake and the original Amiga 1000 in order to make a point. As to whether Quake could run well on any Amiga, I personally have never played Quake of any variety, but the unofficial Amiga port has been out for a few months now, and I hear it can actually achieve up to 10fps on a 40MHz 68040-based Amiga system. Based on that, it would be quite playable on a 68060. But that is irrelevant here anyway.
Where I have to disagree, however, is on the definition of a modern game being one that breaks new ground in graphics, speed, or even sometimes gameplay. A modern game is one which is original and innovative, and gives the computer gamer an entertaining new experience. In fact, I believe it's all the better if such a new game can run with good performance on existing hardware. Otherwise, we would be forced to buy upgrades practically every week (and while this may be the trend in the PC world, it is not necessarily the way it should be). Keep in mind also that current games fall into many different categories, and while those such as Quake are always pushing the envelope of performance, many others do not demand such extreme specifications.
Furthermore, there are many cases in recent history in which games that could very well be ported to the Amiga simply have not been. An example from a few years ago is the MicroProse Master of (Magic/Orion) series. I personally probably spent way too much time playing both of them. These games weren't terribly flashy, but they used VGA graphics, music and sound, a lot of disk access, and a significant amount of AI (at least for the time). Both of them could have run well on even an ECS Amiga with at least a 68020, taking full advantage of all the great little features like EHB and HAM for decent color gradients. The animation would have been smooth, and the sound could have been quite good. They could even have made use of the Amiga OS's multitasking capabilities for the different processes going on within the games. However (get ready for this...I'm sure you'll all be terrrribly surprised), neither was ever ported to the Amiga. In fact, seldom have I seen any software that truly takes full advantage of the Amiga's myriad capabilities. The same situation exists today; many games that could run well on Amigas are simply never made available for the platform.
In summary, there is plenty of room and plenty of power for PC and Mac software of many varieties to be ported to the Amiga. I never meant to imply that games like Quake could run on any average Amiga of today (although I wouldn't be surprised if the higher-end machines could do an admirable job of it); but there are many other possibilities waiting in the wings. A good example is Myst which, thanks to clickBOOM, will become available for the Amiga. There are many such games that don't need a monster machine to run, and in my opinion, fit the definition of "modern" quite well.
So let us look eagerly to the future, and what it may bring for the Amiga. But for many purposes, and even for gaming, we needn't give up on current Amigas just yet.
Michael Webb
Editor-in-Chief
I read Guy Nathan's very interesting article on how to define an "Amigan". While I agree whole-heartedly with most of what was written, I completely disagree with the following:
"Down with the Be/PC/Mac - Long Live the Amiga!"
It is a fact that the Amiga is technically lacking in several important areas. Virtual memory, memory protection, resource tracking, networking, graphics speed, sound, and multiprocessing to name but a few.
While the BeBox (R.I.P.) philosophy of using standard PC peripherals for most of its functions may not be the same as the traditional Amiga philosophy, i.e. gaining speed and features by using custom hardware, the BeBox approach is certainly a very realistic one, which allows users to immediately take advantage of any new developments in e.g. graphics cards (assuming someone writes a driver) without having to rely on one single company to supply all the hardware.
The Be Operating System (BeOS) is new, uncluttered, and unhampered by compatibility - which is reflected by its clean object-oriented API, as well as the speed by which it operates, while still offering the basic technical features, mentioned earlier, that Amiga OS lacks. In fact, the BeOS was awarded the title "Breakthrough Technology Of The Year" by a big computer magazine.
Some Be engineers seem to be old "Amigans". In fact, in interviews, Jean-Louis Gassee has often suggested that the reason why he founded Be Inc. was to develop the next generation "Amiga". This connection to the Amiga community is also reflected by the people who have chosen to become Be developers - where, judging by the BeDevTalk mailing list (the official Be developer discussion forum), many seem to be either Amiga owners, or ex-Amiga owners. This includes well-known and skilled "Amigans" such as Dave Haynie, Fred Fish, Christian Bauer, Osma Ahvenlampi and Joanne Dow. Other famous "Amigans" such as Dr. Peter Kittel and Andy Finkel also occasionally post to the list.
IMHO, "Amigan" has more to do with opinions and attitude than actually owning an Amiga. My suggestion for an "Amigan" definition would be:
"A person, typically being an (ex-)Amiga user and Microsoft opponent, who does not hesitate to choose an alternative computer platform knowing that his/her choice of technology is the best."
In summary, I think Guy Nathan's article was extremely good and well-written, but somewhat unfair to what Be Inc. has accomplished.
Excellent mag, folks! Keep up the good work.
Robert Bjorn
You bring up some good points, but I would like to address a few ideas.
In mentioning some of the ways in which the Amiga is technically lacking, you open (what is with me at least) a can of worms. It's true that the Amiga needs an improvement in the current hardware, and that the OS needs some more features. However, I would vehemently oppose adding anything like memory protection, resource tracking, and virtual memory to the OS without also including the ability to disable it. Why? Because things of that sort can represent yet more decision-making power out of the user's hands, and added memory and processor resource usage. They can be very useful, but I at least would want to be able to control them. One of the greatest aspects of the Amiga OS is its modularity. You can boot in less than 512K (and yet still run the OS at high speed and with full multitasking), and add features as you desire. What the Amiga needs is to have these optional features immediately available upon installation of the OS - but not crammed down our throats, like it is with Windows 95, which seems to swallow over 16MB of memory on bootup whether you like it or not. The BeOS may be an improvement on that, but I believe it still takes something like 8MB RAM on startup, which in my opinion is simply way too much for just an OS.
On the corporate front, some of the things Be has done have made me somewhat distrustful of their motives. Their whole hope of success has sometimes been played up as being built around the Amiga's demise, and that Be is Amiga's replacement. Gassee himself has made at least one injudicious comment to the media about the state of the Amiga, with two possible explanations that I can see: one, he was ignorant of Amiga affairs, or two, he was slanting the truth to advance his own cause. Besides, over the last few years, the Amiga has resurfaced from time to time after appearing nearly down for the count. Each time, it seemed to throw a kink into Be's plans. Coincidence? I doubt it. Be doesn't have many potential inroads into the computer industry, and one of the biggest seems to be over the ruins of Amiga, an idea I do not like one bit.
I don't mean to sound paranoid. I have a great deal of respect for what Be has done (and has the potential to do) to advance the cause against monopolistic and inefficient computing. It's a battle we're all in together, in a way, as proponents of alternative computing platforms. May the Be, and the Amiga, as well as other platforms in the general category, live on. Also, I don't wish to breed a general anti-Be sentiment. We should all cooperate in this endeavor. Still, though, at least in the meantime, I would keep a cautious, and interested, eye in Be's direction.
In defense of Guy Nathan's statement "Down with the Be/PC/Mac - Long Live the Amiga!", I think we have to take it all in the context of the article, and current conditions. The main struggle within the Amiga community at this point is to advance and promote the Amiga. While we may be in the same boat, in some ways, as some of the other aforementioned computing platforms, our primary priority is to the Amiga itself, especially since it really is in rather dire straits after years of stagnation. Not only that, but also because many of us believe that it always has been, and has the potential to continue being, the best computer ever created. It may have floundered a bit in recent years, but with a concerted effort, we can get over that hill and return once again to the mainstream.
Your treatment of the idea of an "Amigan" as more a philosophical ideal than users of a particular type of computer is an interesting and unique interpretation. I might attach that idea to another word, however; perhaps something embodying "educated computer user" or "technology-aware consumer", but in fewer words. I may be from the old school of thought, but to me, and Amigan is still an Amiga user, and somebody who continues to use (generally) and support this platform, against all odds. The fundamental ideals of alternative computing play a very big role in that idea, but the Amiga itself still must enter into it somehow. For, you see, we still have a battle to fight, as does the good old Amiga...down, but never out.
Michael Webb
Editor-in-Chief
Mike,
In response to the discussion on the relative merits of the AAA chip set.
Even Dave Haynie thinks it is out-dated and it was over a year ago that I learned of this expression of opinion. Sure it might be 4, 8 or 16 times better than the AGA set but, on the graphics side, compared to PCI cards it *is* left behind in comparison. And for a new Amiga system we want something that is ahead of the pack to start with, not 'kind of up there'. The A\Box system sounds like it might be just what the doctor ordered.
Yeah, on sound it might still be there but probably won't be in 9 months to 1 year which is how long it would take to get to the ready stage (let alone the shelves). You can't just throw more and more money at projects and expect a linear decrease in completion time. That is the way Microsoft works on some products and look at how efficient and elegant those products are and how on-time they arrive. :)
So I guess my suggestion for the Amiga is to
(Hmmm, sounds a lot like the A\Box and other efforts without the current OS upgrades (point 1)...) Personally I think 'Amiga Technologies' is *dead* - it is now too far behind the 8-ball and the other Amiga-like projects - but that the "Amiga" could live on in the efforts of Phase5 and/or PIOS and/or Be Inc. I am going to buy a PowerUp and/or one of the systems made by these people (a PowerMac clone in Be's case) in the next 18 months after they each mature a little and some applications become available. I feel a need for speed and a 68k Amiga just ain't got it.
cu
Matthew Suter
In terms of performance, the AAA chipset is not just "kind of up there." In 1994, it would have been revolutionary; today, it would still be quite high-ranking. No, it wouldn't blit pixels as quickly as the fastest, biggest, meanest, most expensive graphics card out there, but it would be significantly more powerful than AGA, and easily comparable to anything now available for the Amiga. But that's only half the story.
As I've said before, there is a great deal more to be considered than brute force power when considering future Amiga graphics capabilities. We also have to consider compatibility, versatility, and as you mention, time to market. The AAA chipset offers by far the greatest compatibility with existing Amiga software, and as much as some people disregard that software, the vast majority will not submit to having their entire program collection (often a sizeable investment in not only money, but also time) made obsolete by a "new and improved" computer. In the Amiga's case, we simply cannot alienate the existing user base, for they are, like it or not (I personally find it fitting), what will give the Amiga its foundation, and any hope for future success.
Less often cited is that the custom chipset also has some unique capabilities that we would not easily find elsewhere. Planar graphics modes, for example, have their uses, and the entire idea of genlocks as we know them, the devices that have allowed many a beginner to get involved with video easily and inexpensively via the Amiga, is tied in closely with the architecture and mode of operation of the custom chipset. Could we really justify eliminating these, as well as other features, all in the name of "standardization"?
But very importantly, the Amiga needs to return to the market as soon as possible. Recent sales of A1200's and A4000T's have been somewhat a stopgap measure. The time required for development and integration of the AAA chipset (remember, it was almost completed - the next revision was to boot the OS) would be significantly less than that required to move completely to a new hardware platform and provide a reasonable measure of compatibility and integration. Attempting to make such a huge change would mean biting off far more than we can chew right now. The Amiga simply doesn't have the time to spare.
Returning to the issue of performance, I seriously doubt most current Amiga users would find the AAA chipset lacking in power. With high resolutions (up to 1280x1024 72Hz noninterlaced, with probably even higher resolutions possible, considering the programmable nature of the chipset), terrific graphics speed, 64-bit configuration, chunky pixel modes (and a general byte-wise orientation to the hardware), 24-bit color, real VRAM for no bus contention, very high bandwidth, 16-bit 8-channel CD-quality sound, and various other multimedia and I/O-oriented capabilities, it offers plenty of power and potential, and all at a reasonable manufacturing price (remember when you could get a base A4000 (with custom chipset, of course) for a little more than $1000?). There may be devices out there that could beat these capabilities (although you'd pay a pretty penny for many of them), but none could also provide the custom chipset's other significant advantages listed above.
I personally believe the former Amiga Technologies, now as Amiga International with the backing of Gateway 2000, has plenty of potential for success. My general ideas for future Amigas include the following:
Of course, the underlying idea is most important. The Amiga should be maintained as a computer for an intelligent and discerning user, but easy to access for beginners; it should embody the ideals of speed, power, and efficiency, and modularity. Compatibility is of the utmost importance, and above all, it is important to continue to use what has helped the Amiga all along. That includes the custom chipset, and the Amiga OS in the general form it takes now. Above all, build upon the Amiga's legacy, and the existing user and developer base (the Amiga community), for that is all it has had recently, and all it shall have as it once again ventures forth into the modern computer industry and market.
Michael Webb
Editor-in-Chief
Hello,
Just saw the letter from Audree L. Karlosky, she said she really liked the printouts from the Alps md2010, but was worried about compatibility. Tell her don't worry you have Turbo-Print 5 the driver you want to use is the one for the Citizen Printiva 600C, the Alps and Printiva are essentially the same (they don't use the same ribbons though). I did contact the TurboPrint people before I bought it to make sure they had drivers for either printer. I also asked Wolfe Faust, of Studio II, if he was going to support these printers and he said yes but that he had some problem with his beta tester or something (this was early February, I think I still have his message if you want it, probably be best if you contacted him directly, to get some official word) and that since he didn't have access to an actual printer he would not be able to do any color correction tables. Naturally I needed the drivers soon so I went with TurboPrint.
One other thing, the Alps does Epson emulation so you could use an LQ-2550 driver, IIRC, of course you would be limited to 360dpi, color printouts would be even slower than they are (due to the way the printer works), and you couldn't use TurboPrint's color correction.
I did encounter other problems. The big one was due to the combination of TurboPrint's printer.device, FinalWriter, and Executive.
PS: If I get a chance I will probably be doing a review of both the Alps and TurboPrint combo for the comp.sys.amiga.reviews group.
Rene Mendoza
Glenwood Springs, CO
At my place of work, we use a W95 Pentium with a colour RIP, and we have an Adaptec AVA1515 SCSI card with an NEC CD-ROM, an Iomega ZIP, a SyQuest, and an HP Deskscan all happily running from one adaptor!
There are 3 reasons I can think of that she may have problems:
a) Most PC SCSI units come with a "One Device" SCSI adaptor card! This is to keep the price down without stopping people just buying one device, but all the manual says is that it "has not been tested " or "is not recommended" to use them with more than one. In fact, they are not designed to run more than one device, and almost certainly won't!
Typical PC box shifter salesmanship, sell you something, and then tell you what else you need to spend $100 on to REALLY use it! I have seen PC's with 2 or 3 "single device" SCSI cards, filling up expansion slots!
b) If you use a SCSI adaptor with both Internal and External devices, you must remove the card's terminating resistors, as it is then in the centre of the chain.
c) Windows 95 is very resistant to changing configurations. You need to edit the registry to remove some devices, so if you update your system by fitting a new card, the old one's settings are still in there somewhere, and they stop the new ones from taking over. I have had to deinstall and reinstall Windows 95 in the past to overcome the system's inertia! So much for the PC upgradability myth. "Plug 'n Pray".
An interesting side effect of this showed up Windoze's untidiness. After deleting the Windows directory, and reinstalling from scratch, with EXACTLY the same applications and settings, my C: drive had an extra 80 MB free!
Now, I only really use my PC as a testbed for applications, devices, and troubleshooting, but even so, I was surprised by just how much space was taken up in the PC system by bits and pieces left over after upgrades, deinstalls, and reconfigurations.
Yes, I know my LIBS:, DEVS:, L:, C:, S:, Prefs, etc. are littered with old files I've forgotten the owner of, but certainly not 80MB!
Plus lately, Amiga applications seem to be far more self-contained. There really is no need for an application to keep all its ARexx files in S:, for instance, as Prodraw used to.
I have an Amiga and a PC at home, and I leave you to guess which I enjoy, and which I spend long hours struggling with.
Leo Maxwell
Do you have something to say about the Amiga, the Amiga community, the Amiga industry, or The Amiga Monitor? Click here to send e-mail to "Feedback". Note that we do not necessarily publish all the letters we receive.
Amiga Web Directory