NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/advocacy/32436

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 9.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!oracle!unrepliable!bounce
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: [e-mail] (David Navas)
Subject: Re: Future Amiga chipsets
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Oracle News Poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mailseq.us.oracle.com
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:14:38 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.
Lines: 203

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>I can think of a million "more fun" universes.  Your point?  (Why is this
>turning into a discussion about metaphysics?)

Take a look at the newsgroup?
Take a look at the date?

What better time and what better place to have such discussions?

>For example, a 32-bit bus-mastering SCSI controller?  I would find it useful
>if, for example, I had to support many users.  I don't, and 99.9% of
>computer buyers don't either.

You would find it useful under those circumstances because there exists
something that would make use of it.

Let's be honest here, we software writers have been very good at soaking all of
the computational bandwidth and memory resources that currently exists.  I
don't believe for one moment that were such things as the above more widely
used (or, at least, included with base hardware) that we would find something
to do with the bandwidth even for single "home enthusiast" users like
ourselves.

>: Are you really missing the chicken-and-egg scenario you are proposing as a
>: "defense"?
>Hmm...  That's a good point.  I have to agree.

The above is basically the same example, except with the software end of things
included....


>[workstation companies]
>somehow have more of a right to exist, or are somehow more "serious", than
>"personal computer" companies"?

No, though that's a valid reading.  It's more like a hope that the grass is
greener on the other side....  [having currently to ride out the economy by
programming on 486s]

>: worse shape.  Again, the driving force for change in the PC industry does
>: not come FROM the PC industry.  This is dangerous.
>Really?  Where does it come from?

Mainframe designers?
Workstation designers?

Depends on what you're talking about.  "Super"-pipelining or "hi-res graphics"?

I'm sure the clone market has had contributions of their own, but the PC
industry is a mostly beg-and-borrow field.  Which is fine, as long as there
exists someone to beg and borrow from.  The PC industry is cutting VERY
deeply into the mainframe industry....

Anyway, the current structure is likely to undergo some serious changes --
I just hope that the market-driven folk have less say in it than the
engineers, or we're likely to see less innovation and more ridiculously
ludicrous marketing claims.

>: What, a more vivid representation of the real world?
>: How does that, in your words "help you now"?  I agree, this is a great thing
>: to have, but it is inconsistent to your "useful for human beings *today*".
>Absolutely false.  I can make use of the 24-bit graphics card *today*, thanks
>to DIG.

"Goodness gracious me".  No, I never intended to say that you couldn't -use-
your 24bit gfx card.  I just wonder what you might want to use it -for-?

Or, more importantly, what average Jane businesswoman would use it for?

>: The whole idea of a 66Mhz 486 is inconsistent to the same.  That doesn't
>: make it a bad thing -- far from it.  It is merely inconsistent to praise
>: the progress in one area and attempt to defend that lack of same in
>: other areas.

>Why is it inconsistent?  Effort is going into progress that benefits the user
>in the most dramatic way, and I'm talking about *lots* of effort.  Yet you
>look at one part of the system that hasn't changed in a long time (although
>alternatives do exist), and call the whole thing "crippled".

Depends on your outlook -- and with the things you want to do.  Obviously.

Without getting into long, meaningless metaphors (wow, I'm sparing you my
rotten-apple metaphor, what lucky chaps and chappettes you must feel like ;)),
let's just say that it is as inconsistent for anyone to call something
crippled just because one part is, as it is to call something a "revolutionary
miracle" when not everything therein is....

>Do you at least agree that I would be equally justified in calling the Amiga
>"crippled"?

Depends on what mood I was in at the time ;) ;)

Seriously, though, would you not agree that I haven't, on many occasions
within the past two posted notes, done just that?  Remember that little
tirade about what -was- and what was -not- a crippling feature on the Amiga?

>You can make a living off them.  Obviously they are used by *somebody*
>as tools.

Through extensive (:)) research, I've been able to learn that they're most
effective as revenge against people you hate.  :) :) :)

Seriously, this country has not done even some of the SIMPLEST things with
technology that is 10 years old.  What is it, something like 20% of your
hospital bills go toward covering the "paper" trail?

Hmm....

On the Berkeley campus alone there were at least three different computer
systems with three wildly disparate views about my "current address".

Hmm....

>Maybe that's because these applications don't exist for the Amiga?  On my PC,
>I use an application called "Quicken" to manage my finances, and to me, the
>convenience was easily worth the price of the PC.  Of course, I also use my
>PC for other things, but those could not really be classified as everyday
>uses.

>Also, why are we always talking about "Joe Consumer"?  What about people who
>use computers in business?

Both of my parents AND my step-mother (have no step-father) are in the
computer "business".  Remember, the vast majority of "business" uses for
the PC requires knowledge of 1-2-3 or WordPerfect (look at some of the
wantads...), neither of which requires 486 or even 386 technology....

This is evolving as we speak, but our ability to produce faster machines is
outstripping our ability to write the software for it....

As to my finances, I take a very silly approach, I don't spend more than I
earn.  At some point I will become more sophisticated about this, and perhaps
I WILL need a computer to do a few projections for me.  However, when a
significant minority of Americans haven't learned the spending vs. earning
rule....

>: That's probably why more people own screwdrivers and hammers than computers.
>That's also why more people own PC's than Amigas.

Could be.  It's a reasonable conclusion.

I don't think so, though.  It IS probably why more businesses own clones than
Amigas.  That I would agree with.

I know I haven't exactly put forth a very coherent argument, so let me try and
put things together here.  I do think that businesses have a need for
computing power.  I do think that people have a need for computing power.
I think that the latter requires a level of sophisitication that wildly
exceeds the level of sophisitication of the former AND that exceeds
that of available (affordable) hardware.

Which is to say, computers are useful for businesses today, computers WILL be
useful for consumers someday.

>Yes, but is it useful for something?

Is AI useful?
You can ask this question?
You mean, would it be useful for a computer to do what you meant it to do,
and not what you told it to do?

[Sarcasm flowing]  Why, no, I don't suppose it would be....

If computers are to make the transition to mainstream society I believe that
it is not only "useful", it is a "prerequisite".

And no, I am NO AI expert/aficionado/etc.  I'm merely drawing some conclusions
from popular misconceptions....

>I develop software as a hobby, I use the PC for word processing, I experiment
>with music composition, and I manage my finances.  BTW, why are you excluding
>work-related applications again?

Yes and no, I suppose.  Depending on how your life revolves around your work.
I'm flexible.  What I want to know is how computers will revolutionize the
consumer industry, not how computers have already revolutionized the
business world.  Hence the thrust of the question.  BTW, I do two of your
four -- I'd write letters too, but I'm not terribly diligent about it :(

>: Tell me why 100million people need one?
>Obviously, for thousands of different applications, including business uses.

I doubt that the number of applications grows to be much more than 10
different applications (for, say, 70-80% of these people).

Shoot me for asking aout the PC industry and not the BC industry (business
computing).  :) :)

>Whoa!  Where did you ever get this attitude?  Anyone else think that computers
>are totally useless?

No, I said Personal Computers are largely irrelevant for day-to-day HOME
(personal) tasks.  For me, my person is largely removed from the work that I
do, and hence do not consider business as relevent to home use.  I do NOT
take my (ORACLE) work home....  I do not think that computers are totally
useless, I think they are irrelevant for day-to-day life -- unlike, say,
the automobile (at least in the US).  To me this seems upside down, because
the computer seems to hold a lot more promise than an automobile....

Oh yeah, and remember, this is mostly a "metaphysical" argument anyway :)

David C. Navas                        [e-mail]
Working for, but not speaking on behalf of, Oracle Corp.