NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/8307

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 11.0 KB | 251 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.networking
Path: news.sprintlink.net!eskimo!drizzit
From: [e-mail] (G. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: New Press Release!
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.networking
Sender: [e-mail] (News User Id)
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <[e-mail]> <4hjpct$[e-mail]> <4hn614$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i961g$[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 02:53:54 GMT

Michael van Elst ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] (G. Baldwin) writes:

: >How dare you sit here and spout out such an ignorant statement like
: >that.  "want to run Word for Windows"???  Bah.  I hope you've noticed
: >this but

: So you do not want to run bloated software.

You have lost the ability to see the difference between "bloatware" and
"CPU intensive software".

: >(1) Most games out for any OS right now require (as a base) more power
: >    than a 68040/40 can pump out.

: But you want to buy a game computer where everyone knows that you need
: a Pentium or game console to play games.

I don't.  I don't plan to buy another Amiga until we have something that
meets or beats the competition (like the A500 did when it was *first
released*) and is a fairly reasonable cost.

: >(2) Your 030/40 is still going to have problems dealing with the
: >    increasing demands of larger and more colorful graphics.

: So this 030/40 computer has _larger and more colorful graphics_ built in ?

Have you been locked up in your basement with a text based terminal? Last
time I looked around, games used more graphics, with more colors, and
higher resolutions.  Web pages have gone from little icons to full page
JPEGs or GIFs, full color backgrouns, ANIMs, ect...  these are things
that the average person might deal with.  Were you thinking that I meant
a new chipset or something?

: >(3) Last time I checked, Final Writer itself wasn't much better than Word
: >    at speed.  40 page document, about 10 or 20 pictures, oh boy oh boy
: >    was it slow.

: Probably half as slow as Word with just 4MB RAM after the second page.

Actually, no.  I use Word on both 030 based Macs and slower 486 machines,
and Final Writer was bad.  When I used it on my old CyberVision64, it
helped in *some* areas, but not all.  Took just as long as ever to load
up a document, just as long to import graphics, load up Outline fonts, ect...

: >(4) I guess nobody you know ever does anything else that needs a fast CPU
: >    such as archiving, image conversion, possibly rendering (like VRML
: >    objects out on the web...  whoops, forgot.  Amiga is the only "major"
: >    platform out w/o a VRML browser),

: The Amiga is a major platform ?

Its a lot larger than the Cray or C64 platform, and it still has the
support of a lot of people, but you are right.  I use the term major
loosely, which is why I put " " around it instead of * * marks.

You still ignore the fact that EVERYONE needs a fast CPU, not just people
who do image processing.  If that wasn't true, we'd still all be using 8086s
or similar CPUs.

: >    And ya know, last time I checked, my hard drive interface seemed
: >    much much better after I dropped it into an 030 and then 040 system.

: Do you want to say something ?

I thought that you may of understood what I was trying to say here, but I
guess I overestimated your intelligence.  In general, the faster your CPU is
the faster (to a point) the rest of the system is going to be.  From
person experince I have noticed that (in general) things such as Grfx,
Memory access/transfer, and I/O (serial, SCSI, ect..) usually have a
better chance of maxxing out to their full potential on a faster CPU than
a slower one.

: >    (but then I guess if they weren't fast with an 020, then they must
: >    of sucked because the programmers didn't write the drivers is pure
: >    ASM, eh?)

: ... says someone who wants Pentium games on the Amiga and is too ignorant
: to see that not even a 060 is fast enough for that. But still, a 030/40
: is too slow and a 040 or 060 magically helps.

See my comment below on the PPC.

: >Well, remember that the EC030 lacks any working MMU.

: Since it isn't used by AmigaOS, Pentium games and Amiga programs it isn't
: really _lacking_.

I used to be the same way.  "What do I need an MMU for?"  Then I got into
the situation of wanting one.  If there weren't a large number of people
who would like an MMU, this discussion would of never come up.

: >that need it, like Enforcer, VMM, or FastROM, or can use it to speed
: >things up, like ShapeShifter, then I found the lack of one a real pain
: >in the ass.

: So, you think that developers or people doing image processing would be
: satisfied with a 030 ? Of course not, these wouldn't even buy the base
: machine.

ROTFL....

What kind of people do you think make software in the Aminet?  People who
only own high end machines???  I don't think so.  Many of them only own
030s right now.  I happen to be one of them.  I don't own a high end
machine, I own 2 mid level machines.  And when I was developing software
on my A4000/030, I found it very frustrating that Commodore not only
denied us the option of buying the A4000/030 with an MMU, but also made
it so that we could not pop out the EC030 and put a full blown 030 in
(the EC030 is surface mounted).  When I started developing, I couldn't
use Enforcer.  And some of my firends who don't develop want to use an
MMU so they could get that extra speed out of the OS or out of
ShapeShifter.  Some of them wanted to use Unix.  But I guess these aren't
things for base machines....  I guess that all of those people who use
ShapeShifter on their 020 based A1200s must be a myth that pro-MMU people
just made up.

: >And what if I want to use Unix?  Can't do it w/o an MMU...

: If you want to use UNIX you can a) do some whining why this base machine
: doesn't allow you to run UNIX or b) do something sensible and buy cheap
: PC hardware to run UNIX.

Why should I pay another $600-$1000 for a crapola PC when for an extra
$30 I can have a full blown 030 and run it on my system.  (I run NetBSD
on my A3000/030-16 with 6MB of memory.  If you call that a high end
system, then I would have to think that you are still living in 1989)

: >Why not better, lets just drop the 680x0 line all together.

: And now we come to pure fantasy.

And now we come to why I think that you should take yourself and get lost.
You yourself agree that an 040 or 060 can't run "PC or Mac bloatware"
because its not fast enough, and that its too costly (esp the 060, and both
the 040/060 meory subsystem).  Now we have ourselves a CPU line that is very
fast, and very inexpensive for what it does, and you think that using it
is a bad idea.  Why?


: >when a PPC 603 emulates 680x0 code faster than your 68EC030/40 can
: >execute it?

: It doesn't.

It does too.  I've actually run the same apps on an new PowerMac with a
PPC603e and on an old Mac with an 030/33 in it.  Overall, the PowerMac
was just a little faster when doing full emulation.  (BTW, we had the
program "Double Speed" installed, which has a better 680x0 emulation
library than the one that Apple ships stock with the Mac).

We also tried a final test...  we ran SimCity2000 680x0 on both
machines.  The PPC ran it just a bit faster (almost not noticeable).  Then
we loaded up the PPC version and the difference was astonishing.  It was even
faster than the 040/40 Mac that we had in the lab.

But again, you say that speed is not for everyone...  you think that
dropping the 680x0 line in favor for the PPC is pure fantasy.  Well,  I
hope you've noticed, but then I guess the head developers at Apple,
Nintendo, Sega, Sun, and countless other companies have already done so.

Tell me right now, no bullshit.  Why do you think that a PPC is a bad choice?
Why is it pure fantasy to drop the 680x0 line?

: >After all, the PPC603 isn't much more expensive than a 68040 chip is, if
: >not cheaper.

: It is more expensive.

I went looking in Motorola's own page


: >So I ask one last time - why do you think Amigas shouldn't have anything
: >better than a 68EC030/40?

: I do not think that. But I believe that a EC030/40 is a reasonable choice
: at the time. Squabbling about 060s and PPCs is just wishful thinking, mostly
: of people that wouldn't buy such an Amiga anyway. But the EC030/40 does
: have applications and customers now.

You sure do seem to show it.

The EC030/40 would of been a great CPU to use when the A1200 first came
out, but not now.  Agreed, it is a good CPU, but its just not what the
Amiga needs.

The only reason the A1200 even sold the way it was is because it was
that, nothing, or an A4000/030 ($1400 more).  Some poeple chose the
A1200, others chose to jump ship, other just didn't upgrade.

The only people who will upgrade to this machine are a few old A500
owners and a few people who were saving to upgrade their A1200s (much
better idea to get an 060 people).  Who else?  Power users won't.  Hell,
most of them have left anyways.  So all you have left are a few
staggalers.  Is that the kind of platform we want?  A platform that can't
even run modern day apps ("bloatware" or not) because it hasn't eveolved
in the past 6 years.

It is not I that is full of "wishful thinking".  I am just looking into
the future.


: >its so that all of the little kids can play games on a $400 machine, hey,

: I'm not talking about games. But you seem to be pretty focused on playing
: games. Why don't you go for a playstation instead of asking the Amiga to
: become one ?

You just trapped yourself with that statement.

(1) You say that the Amiga is not powerful enough to run high end software

(2) On the Amiga, if you don't run high end software such as Renderers or
    Image Proccessing, you usually use it for games and/or word processing

(3) If you plan to use an 030/40, you will not be able to run new games

(4) If a $400 Amiga doesn't compete with game consoles or with $1500 Macs
    or PC with some kind of plan, it will just have to duke it out with used
    equipment from other platforms which can do more for less $$$.


I.E., the Amiga is good at nothing and doesn't compete with anything.
That is basically what you are saying that we should do with the Amiga by
giving it an EC030/40.  That is why people have jumped ship, and that is
why people are going to continue to do so.  I am not being depressing, I am
being realistic, yet you do not want to handle the truth.

                   Greg Baldwin ([e-mail])
     Amiga Junkie and User since 1987   Computer Science & DTV Student
     Commodore64 Fan since about 1982   http://www.eskimo.com/~drizzit

: --
:                                 Michael van Elst

: Internet: [e-mail]
:                                 "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."