NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/8364

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 7.1 KB

Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Michael van Elst)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.networking
References: <[e-mail]> <4hjpct$[e-mail]> <4hn614$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i961g$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
Date: 16 Mar 1996 11:59:41 +0100
Subject: Re: New Press Release!
Message-ID: <4ie6ut$[e-mail]>
Organization: dis-

[e-mail] (G. Baldwin) writes:

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

You have lost the ability to see the difference between "bloatware" and
PC software. In fact, you really need some pretty good eyes.

>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.

The A500 did never beat the competition. But it was cheap, cheap enough
for you to afford it. Now that you can afford more you call it crap.

>: 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.

The tell us, o wise man, how this is possible with a machine that uses
AGA graphics.

>Web pages have gone from little icons to full page
>JPEGs or GIFs, full color backgrouns, ANIMs, ect...

I don't see a problem with that. Anything you need to display these graphics
takes only a fraction of the time you need to download it.

>that the average person might deal with.  Were you thinking that I meant
>a new chipset or something?

You would need more CPU power if you had to deal with a higher resolution display.

>: 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.

I have used Word on 030 based Macs and faster 486 machines. And I don't want to
use that crap every again.

>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.

You are all using 8086s or similar CPUs. Of course a Pentium is a bit faster,
but productivity didn't change much. Most of the advantages come from smarter
software which is rarely CPU intensive.

>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.

If the CPU is all you have then this might be true.

>From
>person experince I have noticed that (in general) things such as Grfx,

Your personal experience with PCs ?

>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.

Sure. But as of yet, most people that would like an MMU just want it because
they don't have one. There are very few applications of an MMU with current
software and the people that really use an MMU will also want some faster
CPU. A perfect situation to sell the cheap, non-MMU chip to new users and
accelerators (with MMU) to the few people that need it.

>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.

Well, I consider my A3000 (with 68030/25) "high end".

>it so that we could not pop out the EC030 and put a full blown 030 in
>(the EC030 is surface mounted).

There were several CPU cards with 030s and 040s.

>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.

Do you see that you are in a small minority ?

>Some of them wanted to use Unix.  But I guess these aren't
>things for base machines....

Indeed.

>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.

I consider this a myth.

>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.

Because you pay an extra $300.

>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?

Because you cannot sell machines with PPC now. There is no software for it,
no operating system, nothing. If you want to sell Amigas now, they must
use 68k CPUs.

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

>: It doesn't.

>PPC603e and on an old Mac with an 030/33 in it.
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's why you see the PPC emulate it at equal speed.

>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.

Obviously, but with zero PPC software for the Amiga this is pretty academic.

>Tell me right now, no bullshit.  Why do you think that a PPC is a bad choice?

I never said this. We are discussing the new Amiga model which was just shown
by AT. This model could never have a PPC.

>Why is it pure fantasy to drop the 680x0 line?

It is pure fantasy to ask for a PPC computer now.

>I went looking in Motorola's own page

... to find that a reasonably fast 603 is more expensive than a 040.

>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.

Try some logic. If you sell an Amiga now it needs an 68k CPU. If you sell
an Amiga now it has to be cheaper than PCs (in a usuable configuration),
otherwise it has to compete with PCs, which it can't. Selling 060 Amigas
might be good for you or me, but not for AT.

>staggalers.  Is that the kind of platform we want?

Do we want AT being bancrupt because they build hardware that doesn't even
sell to a few power users because it is just to expensive ?

>(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 $$$.

That's the big problem. But selling 060 Amigas for $6000 doesn't cut it.

>That is basically what you are saying that we should do with the Amiga by
>giving it an EC030/40.

I say that with an EC030/40 it can be cheap enough to get new customers that
want a computer but that can't afford to buy a $2000 PC.

--
                                Michael van Elst

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