NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/sys/ibm/pc/misc/16484

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-09 | 7.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!mcdchg!laidbak!obdient!amiserv!redorc!dmkasten
From: [e-mail] (Bowie Poag)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:05:29 CST
Organization: Red Oracle Bbs/Network
Lines: 145

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Steve Sheldon) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bowie Poag)
write
>s:
>
>
>>What the industry is now faced with, is a machine that can run full-screen
>>animations (read: NOT miniature window-sized movies) at a full 30 frames per
>>second, using 262,144 colors simultaneously, which puts image quality
>>indiscernable from full 24-bit graphics. Ontop of that, it has an '040 under
>>the hood for some pretty beefy horsepower for whatever else interests you,
>>everything from DTP to 3-D modeling..A bus architecture faster than the
>>Macintosh Quadra's NuBus, and EISA, and slick NeXT'ish user interface, and a
>>high-speed  multitasking OS driving the whole thing have been the trademarks
>>of the Amiga line since day one.

>
> I guess I'd comment, big deal.  First, I don't care about animations, as I
>don't use them at work or at home.
>
> While an '040 gives it some horsepower, and so does the bus architecture.
>There aren't enough applications available to make use of it.
> I guess if I need speed and power and want to run applications that require
>that speed and power, I'd more likely go with a workstation from Sun or DEC.
>
> Further, the Amiga OS needs work.  It's falling behind the times, and
>really does not take full advantage of the current computing power.  The
>lack of memory protection and virtual memory is real noticeable.


     Uhh, I take it youre referring to the old ancient OS, AmigaDos 1.3..
     AmigaDos 2.0 essentially kicks next weeks excrement out of AmigaDos 1.3.
     Both in appearance, AND in functionallity. The only thing I could compare
     it to would be a NeXT, as far as the user interface is set up..Keep in
     mind that AmigaDos has had IPC (Interprocess Communication), and the
     functional equivalent of Windows 3.1's "OLE" (Object Link Embedding)
     YEARS before Windows offered it.  AmigaDos 1.3 is plainly -ugly-..
     AmigaDos 2.04 is like a whole new world.

>
>>All the bragging aside, im curious as to how the MSDOS community views this
>>machine. Whats your reaction to it? Being an ex-MSDOS user myself, I can
>>identify with the pretty inaccurate assumption of "Amigas are game machines"

>
> Being a former Amiga owner, I'd say "Amigas are game machines".  I had real
>difficulty finding programming tools and applications programs.
> I should qualify that because the "Amiga is a video machine".  There is a
>good deal of video and graphics software.  Unfortunately, that does not
>interest me.


     I have relative ease finding programming tools and applications. I dunno
     why you were having problems. Often I find similar applications on the
     Amiga to posess a great deal more quality than DOS/Windows applications,
     primarrily, id guess, becuase weve had our "Windows" since '85..You tend
     to learn whats the wrong-way, and whats the right-way to make software
     in 7 years. :) A decent graphical user interface has only been present
     on the MSDOS side of the battlefeild for few years. True, the selection
     of IBM applications absolutely dwarfs that of the selection available to
     Amiga users--But whats to say I cant use YOURS via a bridgeboard? :)
     To be honest, I cant think of a single application I -wish- my Amiga
     could do, that an IBM can.. I can think of MANY that work the opposite
     way--Things an Amiga can do that I wish the IBM world could have.

>
>>response, primarrily because I once believed that statement was true..So for
>>those of you who still think this way, ill ask you to refrain from co>>
commenting.the last thing I want to have here is another Amiga vs MSDOS flame
war. What id
>>primarrily like to hear is the reaction from those of you who consider
>>yourselves "wise" as to having experience with platforms other than your own.

>
> I don't think it matters.  IMHO, the Amiga 1000 had something of an impact
>on the computer world.  At that time most home users had C-64's, and so the
>Amiga appealed to them at the time.  However, with the growing popularity
>and sales of PC clones, along with the increased development that goes into
>them, the Amiga is an interesting curiosity and will not make a serious
>impact on the market.


     It aint over till the fat lady sings. :) The Amiga movement has been
     rapidly picking up steam in the past 2 years, especially.. from 1985 to
     1990, there were about 1.5 million Amiga users. The number of Amiga users
     now stands at roughly 3.5 million...Thats 2 million people on the boat
     in the past 24 months.. And with the advent of the 3rd and 4th generation
     Amiga chipsets, as well as CBM's new push towards encorporating faster
     processors (ala 030/040/060), such changes can only do worlds of good for
     Commodore, financially.. Not to mention improving its image greatly.


>
>>As an Amiga user myself, the A4000 (and more specifically, the third
>>[Bgeneration Amiga chipset its built around) represent a fairly substantial
>>leap forward in the state of our platform, finally giving the Mac / Unix and
>>especially MSDOS communities something to think about..


>
> But I don't think it does.  In regards to PC/Mac/Unix technology in 1990,
>perhaps.  But today you'll find a wide variety of system offerings which
>offer similar features to the Amiga 4000, or exceed it's capabilities in
>many other areas.
>
     True. But were talking capabilities straight-out-of-the-box.. The A4000
     can crank all that out with no help from external expansion cards,
     external framebuffers, and whatever else. Just the same, nothing prevents
     me from putting a 2048 X 2048 X 32-bit color Resolver II board into an
     Amiga (well, exept maybe my bank account!).. Nor does it prevent me
     from adding on a 16-bit sound digitizer/playback board.. See, thats why
     Amigas have slots. :)


>>Again, I should stress that this post is NOT intended to begin an MSDOS vs
>>Amiga flamewar.. Id just like to hear some comments from the other side of
>>the table. :)

>
> No flames intended.  Being a former Amiga advocate, I just want to say that
>every once in a while Amiga owners need a "reality check".  Which usually
>means a switch kick in the... :-)
>


      100% Flame-Free here, too.. Being a former IBM-ADVOCATE, I can
      understand and sympathize with your uninformed, meaningless squabble. :)
      Just'JoKiN. :-P


>--
>[e-mail]                Steve Sheldon
>Project Vincent                    ICSS Resource Unit
>SCO ODT, Arc/Info, Atlas GIS       2142 Agronomy Hall
>                                   Iowa State University



        +-----------------------------------------------------------+
        |o|              I think, therefore I Amiga.              |=|
        +-----------------------------------------------------------+
        | Douglas Michael Kasten (DMK) | Amiga 2000HD/5 with a tiny |
        |  [e-mail]   | little 21" Toshiba monitor.|
        +------------------------------+----------------------------+