Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!vela!lmbailey
From: lmbai...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Laurana Bailey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: The Amiga's Future
Message-ID: <6678@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 91 19:38:07 GMT
Organization: Lemming-Aid 1992 - Benefit Concert To Save The Lemmings
Lines: 42
I am worried. Seems like everyday some new gee-whiz add-on for the IBM
comes out to improve it's graphics and sound. Seems the price for
faster IBMs is dropping so low that fast Amigas can't compare. The big
business software makers continue to ignore us and Commodore shows no
signs of putting out an improved chip set or marketing of any major
effort.
The Amiga is doing well in Europe, but I don't live in Europe. I live
in the US where I have to drive 40 mins to get to the nearest Amiga
Dealer.
As much as I hate using an IBM, it looks like it will eventually come
down to that.
The most amazing thing I have seen on the Amiga in recent memory is
the Video Toaster which I have no use for. All the graphic's add-ons
can't be used with Workbench let alone a good game. Maybe my
priorities are screwed up, but I'd LIKE to have 256 Colors in my video
games. I'd LIKE to have games support the three button Sega Genesis
pad (not hard to do, but no one is doing it.) I'd LIKE to have more
than 4 voices available when I write songs without resorting to MIDI.
None of this stuff is available and none appears to be on the horizon.
Back in 1986 when I signed on with the Amiga out of pure amazement at
what I saw, I was certain Commodore had caught the ball poised for a
major touchdown. They would seem to have fumbled the ball all over the
end zone. Even Jay Minor, father of the Amiga, doesn't see the machine
as ever becoming anything great now. It's too little too late. We were
ahead of the game, but we just sat around and watched the world rush
past. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft manages to get
Windows working well enough to make it easy to use the IBM.
It's a damn shame too. I've tried to be optimistic about it, but the
more I wait, the darker the future seems.
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|Just another lemming... | Yet another Amiga maniac set loose |
| | on the world...and you thought things|
|lmbai...@vela.acs.oakland.edu | couldn't get any worse. |
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!
ariel.unm.edu!triton.unm.edu!nwickham
From: nwick...@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future
Message-ID: <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 91 05:31:44 GMT
References: <6678@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 25
In article <6...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> lmbai...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Laurana Bailey)
writes:
>
>
>
>Back in 1986 when I signed on with the Amiga out of pure amazement at
>what I saw, I was certain Commodore had caught the ball poised for a
>major touchdown. They would seem to have fumbled the ball all over the
>end zone. Even Jay Minor, father of the Amiga, doesn't see the machine
>as ever becoming anything great now. It's too little too late. We were
>ahead of the game, but we just sat around and watched the world rush
>past. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft manages to get
>Windows working well enough to make it easy to use the IBM.
>
>It's a damn shame too. I've tried to be optimistic about it, but the
>more I wait, the darker the future seems.
>
I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and
the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get
CDTV started. You might be right, but I wouldn't place any bets until
about a year from now.
NCW
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!uwm.edu!linac!
mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!vaxf.iastate.edu!TAAB5
From: ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 00:36:19 GMT
References: <6678@vela.acs.oakland.edu>,<1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu>
Sender: n...@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Lines: 44
In article <1991Jun03.053144.3...@ariel.unm.edu>, nwick...@triton.unm.edu
(Neal C. Wickham) writes:
>In article <6...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> lmbai...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
(Laurana Bailey) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>Back in 1986 when I signed on with the Amiga out of pure amazement at
>>what I saw, I was certain Commodore had caught the ball poised for a
>>major touchdown. They would seem to have fumbled the ball all over the
>>end zone. Even Jay Minor, father of the Amiga, doesn't see the machine
>>as ever becoming anything great now. It's too little too late. We were
>>ahead of the game, but we just sat around and watched the world rush
>>past. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft manages to get
>>Windows working well enough to make it easy to use the IBM.
>>
>>It's a damn shame too. I've tried to be optimistic about it, but the
>>more I wait, the darker the future seems.
>>
>
>
>I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and
>the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get
>CDTV started. You might be right, but I wouldn't place any bets until
>about a year from now.
Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community,
the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the
Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few
Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the
flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications.
The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was
obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98%
identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset.
>
>
> NCW
-------------------------------------------------------------
/ Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XG...@ISUVAX.BITNET /
/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XG...@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU /
------------------------------------------------------------
\ ISU : The Home of the Goon /
\ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon /
-------------------------------------------------------
Path: gmdzi!unido!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
From: r...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 02:50:24 GMT
References: <6678@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu>
<1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: n...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 100
In article <1991Jun4.003619.3...@news.iastate.edu> ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
[Where does he get these statistics?]
> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community,
>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the
>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few
>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the
>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications.
Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you
make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker.
NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only
useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an
interlaced display mode, it sucks. Removing flicker from the Toaster
would be idiotic. For drawing/rendering for broadcast video, flicker
is acceptable. It's besides the point anyway, since the A3000/ECS provide
non-flickering SHARP displays.
> The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was
>obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98%
>identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset.
How do you know this? Have you compared the schematics? Just because
it only has slightly improved display modes doesn't mean that it's
virtually identical. It may have taken considerable design effort and
optimizations to fit those extra features on the already packed chips.
I get the feeling you think the engineers merely threw in some new
modes over a lunch break and had it ready in a few days. I admit, I'm
not an expert on the chip design process, but I'll bet that the
ECS is NOT 98% identical to the old chip set. The denise has had many
new programmble features added.
On the subject of the Amiga's future, it seems multimedia and CD-I
are not being taken into account. The Mac has built up considerable
fame for Desktop publishing, so what about video publishing/mastering?
If CD-I hits America BIG TIME, and as mastering CD's becomes cheaper,
people may want to program/design CDs like they do with home video
cams now. The Amiga could be the ideal platform for multimedia/designing
CD-I applications. I don't even want to hear about the Mac being used
for this(cheaply). Read rec.games.programmer some time, Mac programmers
are having an incredible time getting even primitive animation working fast.
Amiga video software is lightyears(or waves) ahead of the Mac.
BTW, I think System 7.0 is a big failure/joke. It is incredibly slow
on anything less than an 030 with lots of ram. I've been reading
many accounts of users running even a simple application with a clock
program in the background and having the system become incredibly
jerky and slow. One user in comp.sys.mac.system accounts of running
tetris and "superclock" resulting in the game becoming really sluggish
(on an LC). This is pathetic, I can run multiple copies of tetris on
my A500 with a term program, and a clock and all of them run at near
full speed.
I've noticed Apple has defined a new interprocessing scripting
language which some magazines have hailed "revolutionary". This disgusts
me since it sounds suspicously like a rip-off of REXX/(Perl|Awk|etc).
IMHO Apple made a bad move not adopting Rexx since ANSI is "standardizing"
and IBM is reembracing it.
A few months you were complaining about no video cards being availible
for the Amiga, now the situation has changed (Toaster, HAM-E, DCTV,
Colorburst, DMI's Card, Firecracker/24, A2410, A2024(well sorta),
VideoMaster/32(not out yet),Video Blender(not out yet),Harlequin, etc.
BTW, DMI and Firecracker both have higher resolution than Apple's 8/24
card. They require very expensive monitors(DMI) for the high resolution
modes (megapixel 24bit color).)
After all this, you are now back to picking on the custom chip set and
flicker again? Remember, it took the Mac 6 _years_ to finally overcome
the PC market, the Amiga is not going become a success overnight however
it is gaining ground. Technical specs don't define success either, since
the Amiga has had better specs than both the Mac and the IBM when the
Amiga was released. Advertising and software availibility are the key.
Marc, do you actually own an Amiga? Everytime someone posts an
"Amiga's future/success in business/new display availible" you
respond with a "Doom and Gloom" post. If you're this down on the Amiga, why
don't you just buy a Mac and be over with it?
Myself, I won't settle for anything less than an Amiga or a Unix box.
[Why did I bring up the Mac? Well Marc would have brung it up anyway,
and I happen to despise the Mac environment (too confining) and it's
condescending interface. ]
>>
>>
>> NCW
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XG...@ISUVAX.BITNET /
>/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XG...@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU /
>------------------------------------------------------------
>\ ISU : The Home of the Goon /
> \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon /
> -------------------------------------------------------
--
/ INET:r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
| INET:r_cro...@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!
news.iastate.edu!vaxf.iastate.edu!TAAB5
From: ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.105736.15468@news.iastate.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 10:57:36 GMT
References: <6678@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu>
<1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu>,<1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: n...@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Lines: 168
In article <1991Jun4.025024....@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, r...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
(Ray Cromwell) writes:
>In article <1991Jun4.003619.3...@news.iastate.edu> ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>
>
> [Where does he get these statistics?]
>
>> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community,
>>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the
>>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few
>>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the
>>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications.
>
> Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you
>make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker.
>NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only
>useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>interlaced display mode, it sucks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Excuse me while I laugh my head of...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
OK, that's better. Anyway, if you really, truly believe that flicker-
free displays suck, then you'd better tell that to the millions of people
who have purchased MAC and IBM systems with non-interlaced displays.
All of these people are totally stupid to be so converned about their
eyesight that they are willing to pay extra for a display that doesn't
flicker. Hell, having to change ones glasses or contact prescription
every few weeks has never hurt anybody.
Commodore had better get rid of that totally useless thing on the
motherboard of the A3000. It is totally stupid to waste valuable
motherboard space with something as stupid as a device that eliminates
the flicker. Commodore had better recall all existing A3000 systems
at once and get rid of those chips, because nobody wants them and it
was totally stupid to put them there in the first place.
BTW, the Japanese are in big trouble. All of those companies that
are working on flicker-free HDTV technology are totally stupid. People
*WANT* flicker, so there isn't a chance in hell that HDTV will succeed.
>Removing flicker from the Toaster
>would be idiotic. For drawing/rendering for broadcast video, flicker
>is acceptable. It's besides the point anyway, since the A3000/ECS provide
>non-flickering SHARP displays.
Every time someone mentions broadcasting, as if all computers are used
for broadcasting and none are used for anything else, I wish I could reach
through the CRT of my monitor and wrench that person's brains out of their
ears. Even with the Amiga, which is ideally suited for broadcast uses,
only a tiny fraction of the installed base of Amigas are used for
broadcasting. By far the majority of all Amigas sold are being used
for the same uses that all other MACs and IBMs are being used for:
games, word processing, desktop publishing, etc.. All of these
applications benefit so greatly from a sharp display that the flicering,
interlaced display of the Amiga killed the Amiga as a general-purpose
computer for a long time. Eventually Commodore was forced to implement
a kludge to eliminate the flicker from their newest Amiga. Without
the Display Enhancer, nobody doubts that the A3000 would not have had
a chance against the systems from Apple and IBM with very sharp flicker-
free displays.
>
>> The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was
>>obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98%
>>identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset.
>
> How do you know this? Have you compared the schematics? Just because
>it only has slightly improved display modes doesn't mean that it's
>virtually identical. It may have taken considerable design effort and
>optimizations to fit those extra features on the already packed chips.
>I get the feeling you think the engineers merely threw in some new
>modes over a lunch break and had it ready in a few days. I admit, I'm
>not an expert on the chip design process, but I'll bet that the
>ECS is NOT 98% identical to the old chip set. The denise has had many
>new programmble features added.
With the ECS, Commodore basically took some of the registers that
were hard-wired in the old chipset and made them programmable. From
here, the new modes were achieved by using the new programmable
registers. Overall, however, not all that many changes were made.
If you doubt my word, use common sense. Most of the features of the
old chipset are unchanged in the ECS. Commodore made a few registers
programmable, and as a result was able to add some resolution modes
and other capabilities, but overall everything is the some. Hell,
Commodore did not even touch the Paula chip at all, which remains
exactly the same today as it was six years ago. I can even take two
of the custom chips from my old A1000 (Commodore's oldest machine) sitting
here, put them into an A3000 (Commodore's newest and most advanced machine),
and many people would not be able to tell the difference when using
the A3000.
>
> [tangential stuff deleted]
> A few months you were complaining about no video cards being availible
>for the Amiga, now the situation has changed (Toaster, HAM-E, DCTV,
>Colorburst, DMI's Card, Firecracker/24, A2410, A2024(well sorta),
>VideoMaster/32(not out yet),Video Blender(not out yet),Harlequin, etc.
>BTW, DMI and Firecracker both have higher resolution than Apple's 8/24
>card. They require very expensive monitors(DMI) for the high resolution
>modes (megapixel 24bit color).)
I don't remember ever complaining about the lack of video cards for
the Amiga in the past two years. For the past three years, I've
actually been complaining about there being too many available that
were incompatible with each other and even with the Amiga's OS. There
are no standards for the Amiga third-party video hardware market in
sight, and any program that is written for one video card absolutely
will not work with any of the other video cards. I believe the thread
I started was called "Amiga Video Mess", and the problem shows no
signs of alleviating as more incompatible video cards are produced.
>
> After all this, you are now back to picking on the custom chip set and
>flicker again? Remember, it took the Mac 6 _years_ to finally overcome
>the PC market, the Amiga is not going become a success overnight however
>it is gaining ground. Technical specs don't define success either, since
>the Amiga has had better specs than both the Mac and the IBM when the
>Amiga was released. Advertising and software availibility are the key.
>Marc, do you actually own an Amiga? Everytime someone posts an
>"Amiga's future/success in business/new display availible" you
>respond with a "Doom and Gloom" post. If you're this down on the Amiga, why
>don't you just buy a Mac and be over with it?
> Myself, I won't settle for anything less than an Amiga or a Unix box.
>
>[Why did I bring up the Mac? Well Marc would have brung it up anyway,
>and I happen to despise the Mac environment (too confining) and it's
>condescending interface. ]
If you don't like the MAC's "condescending interface", you had better
not ever take a look at a CDTV. The interface of the CDTV is so rigid
and simplistic as to make the MAC look like a UNIX system. The fact is,
the average American person is a complete moron, and you have to make
computers simple or they will not sell. Commodore borrowed quite a
lot from the MAC with Workbench 2.0, and people are continually calling
on Commodore to borrow more from Apple and make the Workbench even more
MAC-like. Judging from the sales of the MAC compared to the sales of
the Amiga, Commodore is right to be borrowing as much as possible
from the MAC.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> NCW
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XG...@ISUVAX.BITNET /
>>/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XG...@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU /
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>\ ISU : The Home of the Goon /
>> \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon /
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--
>/ INET:r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
>| INET:r_cro...@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
>\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
/ Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XG...@ISUVAX.BITNET /
/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XG...@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU /
------------------------------------------------------------
\ ISU : The Home of the Goon /
\ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon /
-------------------------------------------------------
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!
geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
From: r...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.230303.25634@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 23:03:03 GMT
References: <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu>
<1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Jun4.105736.15468@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: n...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 213
In article <1991Jun4.105736.15...@news.iastate.edu> ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>In article <1991Jun4.025024....@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, r...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
(Ray Cromwell) writes:
>>In article <1991Jun4.003619.3...@news.iastate.edu> ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>>
>>
>> [Where does he get these statistics?]
>>
>>> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community,
>>>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the
>>>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few
>>>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the
>>>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications.
[Let me apologize for this personal attack on Marc. I had unsubscribed
this group afdter I got overloaded with 100+ Amiga/Next messages from
Mike D Mellinger. After I come back, I see Marc reiterating his same
arguements. I wish he would pick on something else, atleast it would be new.]
>> Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you
>>make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker.
>>NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only
>>useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>interlaced display mode, it sucks.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Excuse me while I laugh my head of...
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
OK, ok. So I forgot the smiley. I was trying to be sarcastic.
[Deleted Marc's response to my joke.]
>>Removing flicker from the Toaster
>>would be idiotic. For drawing/rendering for broadcast video, flicker
>>is acceptable. It's besides the point anyway, since the A3000/ECS provide
>>non-flickering SHARP displays.
>
> Every time someone mentions broadcasting, as if all computers are used
>for broadcasting and none are used for anything else, I wish I could reach
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The same could be said for publishing. The major arguement for the
Mac is that it's the be-all of publishing.
>through the CRT of my monitor and wrench that person's brains out of their
>ears. Even with the Amiga, which is ideally suited for broadcast uses,
>only a tiny fraction of the installed base of Amigas are used for
>broadcasting. By far the majority of all Amigas sold are being used
>for the same uses that all other MACs and IBMs are being used for:
>games, word processing, desktop publishing, etc.. All of these
>applications benefit so greatly from a sharp display that the flicering,
>interlaced display of the Amiga killed the Amiga as a general-purpose
>computer for a long time. Eventually Commodore was forced to implement
>a kludge to eliminate the flicker from their newest Amiga. Without
>the Display Enhancer, nobody doubts that the A3000 would not have had
>a chance against the systems from Apple and IBM with very sharp flicker-
>free displays.
A sharp display is important however it's not the reason for the
Amiga's poor sales. The ST also had a noninterlaced monochrome mode, but
it didn't take off either. Advertising is what we need! The vast majority
of Mac's are mono, so 24 bit megapixel doesn't help text processing much.
(It's also mega-expensive as are the monitors that can handle it.)
Why can't text processing be done in 640x200? IBM's Text mode on
the older machines was 80 columns x 25 lines and it didn't seem to
inhibit their ability to dominate the market.
>>
>>> The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was
>>>obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98%
>>>identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset.
>>
>> How do you know this? Have you compared the schematics? Just because
>>it only has slightly improved display modes doesn't mean that it's
>>virtually identical. It may have taken considerable design effort and
>>optimizations to fit those extra features on the already packed chips.
>>I get the feeling you think the engineers merely threw in some new
>>modes over a lunch break and had it ready in a few days. I admit, I'm
>>not an expert on the chip design process, but I'll bet that the
>>ECS is NOT 98% identical to the old chip set. The denise has had many
>>new programmble features added.
>
> With the ECS, Commodore basically took some of the registers that
>were hard-wired in the old chipset and made them programmable. From
>here, the new modes were achieved by using the new programmable
>registers. Overall, however, not all that many changes were made.
I'm not arguing that on the surface not many features were added, however
at the lower level, I doubt it was as trivial as you make. Adding
a 'few programmble features' could have taken a year or more of work
to debug the chip.
> If you doubt my word, use common sense. Most of the features of the
>old chipset are unchanged in the ECS. Commodore made a few registers
>programmable, and as a result was able to add some resolution modes
>and other capabilities, but overall everything is the some. Hell,
>Commodore did not even touch the Paula chip at all, which remains
>exactly the same today as it was six years ago. I can even take two
>of the custom chips from my old A1000 (Commodore's oldest machine) sitting
>here, put them into an A3000 (Commodore's newest and most advanced machine),
>and many people would not be able to tell the difference when using
>the A3000.
>
>>
>> [tangential stuff deleted]
>> A few months you were complaining about no video cards being availible
>>for the Amiga, now the situation has changed (Toaster, HAM-E, DCTV,
>>Colorburst, DMI's Card, Firecracker/24, A2410, A2024(well sorta),
>>VideoMaster/32(not out yet),Video Blender(not out yet),Harlequin, etc.
>>BTW, DMI and Firecracker both have higher resolution than Apple's 8/24
>>card. They require very expensive monitors(DMI) for the high resolution
>>modes (megapixel 24bit color).)
>
> I don't remember ever complaining about the lack of video cards for
>the Amiga in the past two years. For the past three years, I've
>actually been complaining about there being too many available that
>were incompatible with each other and even with the Amiga's OS. There
>are no standards for the Amiga third-party video hardware market in
>sight, and any program that is written for one video card absolutely
>will not work with any of the other video cards. I believe the thread
>I started was called "Amiga Video Mess", and the problem shows no
>signs of alleviating as more incompatible video cards are produced.
Commodore _IS_ working on it. They can't perform miracles, and
most of the display manufacturers will have to supply drivers. Most of
the standard graphics lib and intuition calls ARE portable.
(e.g. WritePixel, Draw/Move, Text, AreaMove/End/etc, Flood, etc., even
BltBitMap is portable, see CpuBlit on ab20). The harder stuff to port
is the copperlist and multiple view stuff. MOst of the productivety
software that uses the high level gfx/intuition calls would run without
change. Anything that uses sprites, copperlist, view/viewport stuff
(instead of OpenScreen[Tags]) will most likely break. It's not
all that unreasomable to require developers to update and support their
software for new features in an OS. Look at Apple, their compatibility
% of System 7.0 is worse than ADOS 2.0. Even Excel didn't work under
7.0, but I bet an update/patched copy of Excel will be out very soon.
Every once is a while backwards compatibility needs to be discarded
for increased functionality otherwise you'll end up like MS-DOS.
>>
>> After all this, you are now back to picking on the custom chip set and
>>flicker again? Remember, it took the Mac 6 _years_ to finally overcome
>>the PC market, the Amiga is not going become a success overnight however
>>it is gaining ground. Technical specs don't define success either, since
>>the Amiga has had better specs than both the Mac and the IBM when the
>>Amiga was released. Advertising and software availibility are the key.
>>Marc, do you actually own an Amiga? Everytime someone posts an
>>"Amiga's future/success in business/new display availible" you
>>respond with a "Doom and Gloom" post. If you're this down on the Amiga, why
>>don't you just buy a Mac and be over with it?
>> Myself, I won't settle for anything less than an Amiga or a Unix box.
>>
>>[Why did I bring up the Mac? Well Marc would have brung it up anyway,
>>and I happen to despise the Mac environment (too confining) and it's
>>condescending interface. ]
>
> If you don't like the MAC's "condescending interface", you had better
>not ever take a look at a CDTV. The interface of the CDTV is so rigid
>and simplistic as to make the MAC look like a UNIX system. The fact is,
>the average American person is a complete moron, and you have to make
>computers simple or they will not sell. Commodore borrowed quite a
>lot from the MAC with Workbench 2.0, and people are continually calling
>on Commodore to borrow more from Apple and make the Workbench even more
>MAC-like. Judging from the sales of the MAC compared to the sales of
>the Amiga, Commodore is right to be borrowing as much as possible
>from the MAC.
CDTV isn't a computer. I doubt I'll be doing any programming/word
processing on it. AmigaDOS is superior to the Mac in that I am not
forced to use Workbench if I dont want to. The Shell interface
is just as powerful as the Graphical one(Workbench 2.0) whereas the
Mac hasn't developed a great shell interface that works with ALL
programs. (Tell me, does Word take command line arguements?)
Finder is nothing more than a program loader. It reminds me of
the boot menu I had on my C128, or GEOS on the 64. BTW, Commodore didn't
"borrow" from the Mac, they borrowed from "the industry". Apple didn't
invent the graphic interface. Besides, Workbench 2.0 is organized
considerably different than Finder. The proper thing to say is
Commodore borrowed from existing ideas in the industry and built
upon them.
The "masses" may be ignorant in "math/computers/programming" but
they are not "stupid", they can learn. I feel that hiding the workings
of the interface behind a shield of symbolism keeps the population
ignorant. The older population may be more stubborn to learn
a new interface so an abstract one may be needed to alleviate the
computerphobe syndrome some people have. However, when I see a class
of 30 students, some who have never used a computer before, walk into
a computer lab and type up a fortran program on a VERY old IBM mainframe
running MUSIC I am convinced that an abstract interface is not a prerequisite
for the human race. Sometimes it can be a time saver, other times it can
get in the way.
>>--
>>/ INET:r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
>>| INET:r_cro...@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
>>\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XG...@ISUVAX.BITNET /
>/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XG...@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU /
>------------------------------------------------------------
>\ ISU : The Home of the Goon /
> \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon /
> -------------------------------------------------------
--
/ INET:r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
| INET:r_cro...@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!bryce!netw23!val
From: v...@netw23.uucp (Oberon Kenobi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Letter to Commodore
Message-ID: <177458@netw23.uucp>
Date: 8 Jun 91 13:57:44 GMT
Organization: Weber State University, CS DEPT.
Lines: 110
I sent the following letter to Commodore (by U.S. mail) in February.
Commodore hasn't replied yet, but I thought that this letter would be of
general interest to the network community:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodore Business Machines
Research and Development
1200 Wilson Drive
West Chester, PA 19380
Dear Commodore,
I've been a Commodore Amiga (1000) owner since late 1985. I now
have another Amiga 1000, and will soon purchase another one. I
like the look-and-feel of AmigaDOS V2.0 (or whatever the Amiga's
operating system is called). Unfortunately, it won't run on the
Amiga 1000's because it requires 512K of Kickstart. Couldn't
you make it so that V2.0 will run on the Amiga 1000 by loading
it into some RAM location?
The current Amigas are wonderful, but there is insufficient
incentive for me to upgrade. I await the forthcomming Amigas
with 68040s, and faster 32-bit custom chips.
Thanks for multitasking. It is the best feature of the Amiga,
and I can't live without it. There are also features that I
hope to see in future versions of AmigaDOS:
- Resource tracking: When tasks terminate, they should return
all system resources back to the operating system even
under abnormal termination (i.e.: task deletion). This
most definately includes memory.
- Memory protection: One of the (occasional) problems with
programs on the Amiga is that if they are not perfectly
behaved, they crash the system. This isn't too bad most
of the time, but it happens EVERY time I try to
demonstrate it to someone who owns another computer
system.
- Virtual memory: It would be nice, on Amigas with MMUs, to
have virtual memory possible. Special consideration must
be made for memory that was allocated with the MEMF_PUBLIC
bit. There should also be a way to allocate
non-paged/swapped (but not necessarily public) memory.
- Networking: Standard networking layers should be
distributed with the operating system. The network should
be accessed either as a library or a "device". This
networking "device" should be independant of the phyical
medium (i.e.: serial port, parallel port, ethernet, token
ring, etc.) that is used. And multiple protocols (i.e.:
TCP/IP, DECnet, AMIGAnet (?)) should be able to share the
same physical device. (A cheap ethernet interface would
be nice.)
Apple supplies networking with their Macintosh and even
includes the physical port with which to do it.
Networking support should be built into the file system
(as DECnet on VMS is), and the programs should not have to
worry about routing. The ability to cluster and/or remote
mount file systems should be included (i.e.: VAXcluster,
NFS, RFS) with the networking software.
- Graphics: Support for varying sizes of graphics screens,
aspect ratios, and color depth should be included.
Different, and multiple simultaneous, display devices
should be supported. (The NeXT and Macintosh do this.)
This should include expanding the address space of the
custom chips to 8-megabytes. (As well as faster custom
chips.)
Overall, however, I am pleased with the Amiga line of computers and
still recommend them to all my friends. Unfortunately, many of them
want to buy NeXT computers (when they can afford them).
Eagerly awaiting your reply,
Val Kartchner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will comment on some areas of the above letter before I hear about it
from the NET.
I have an Amiga 1000. I am happy with my Amiga 1000. I was going to get
a third one (as stated above), but that deal fell through. The other Amigas,
including the Amiga 3000, aren't that much of an improvement to cause me to
want to upgrade. I want a 68040 AND 32-bit custom chips.
Networking is a biggie. I've heard, in one of the Amiga magazies, that
Commodore is developing the Standard Amiga Networking Architecture (SANA). I
think that they should, instead, call it Standard Amiga Networking Environment
(SANE). It can be marketed as "The computer for the SANE mind."
Speaking of networking, would any hardware types out there be willing to
create a network adaptor for which a SANE driver could be written. It should be
a bus type network. To make it work with all Amigas and get a reasonably fast
throughput, the adaptor could be made to fit on the back of the floppy drive
chain. Any takers?
Also, considering the price of SCO Xenix comared with the price of the
Amiga with System V release 4 (a "standard" Unix), Commodore could market it as
"Buy our SVR4 Unix, and we'll throw in the machine for free." This could sell
some more systems. (NeXT could make this same claim, but the Amiga has color.)
Most of the rest of the letter is self-explainatory. Some of the rest has
been done, but I want a Commodore standard that comes with the machine.
--
____ ____ ____ |=============================================================|
\ \/ \/ / | "vi? Because I don't have a real editor." -- U*x user |
\Weber State/ |=============================================================|
\University/ |Oberon| Internet: v...@csulx.weber.edu, v...@net23.weber.edu |
\___/\___/ |Kenobi| Usenet: uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!bryce!netw23!val |
Computer Science |=============================================================|
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!vger.nsu.edu!manes
From: ma...@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Letter to Commodore
Message-ID: <1068.285530d3@vger.nsu.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 91 00:21:39 GMT
References: <177458@netw23.uucp>
Lines: 166
In article <177...@netw23.uucp>, v...@netw23.uucp (Oberon Kenobi) writes:
> The current Amigas are wonderful, but there is insufficient
> incentive for me to upgrade. I await the forthcomming Amigas
> with 68040s, and faster 32-bit custom chips.
Insufficient incentive? Sounds to me like you are techno-spoiled. :-)
If Commodore had shipped the A3000 with a 68040 a year ago (which was
impossible) you probably would have changed that to a 68050. Just
a guess however. Not flamming... really!
>
>
> Thanks for multitasking. It is the best feature of the Amiga,
> and I can't live without it. There are also features that I
> hope to see in future versions of AmigaDOS:
> - Resource tracking: When tasks terminate, they should return
> all system resources back to the operating system even
> under abnormal termination (i.e.: task deletion). This
> most definately includes memory.
Though I would like to see resource tracking, it would really hurt the
performance of the Amiga. If it were implemented, I would like it to
be able to be turned off via preferences.
> - Memory protection: One of the (occasional) problems with
> programs on the Amiga is that if they are not perfectly
> behaved, they crash the system. This isn't too bad most
> of the time, but it happens EVERY time I try to
> demonstrate it to someone who owns another computer
> system.
Talk about abandoning the A500/A1000/A2000! To do effective memory
protection would require the MMU of a 68020/68030. To be honest
however, the Amiga operating system is very stable (certainly 2.0 is!)
and this feature would really be the most effective on a developers
machine.
I like the idea that someone from Commodore had, about creating a
special version of AmigaDOS that did _not_ have the 1.3 work-arounds, and
had enforcer, memmung and all of that jazz tied in. I think that would
improve the stability of user programs significantly.
> - Virtual memory: It would be nice, on Amigas with MMUs, to
> have virtual memory possible. Special consideration must
> be made for memory that was allocated with the MEMF_PUBLIC
> bit. There should also be a way to allocate
> non-paged/swapped (but not necessarily public) memory.
With the price of memory dropping like dirt what would be the real
advantage to this? The only things I can think of is handling large
24 bit graphics data and perhaps being able to run numerous multi-megabyte
applications.
I like the fact that the Amiga operating system is 'real time'. I
would want to be able to turn this feature off if it were implemented.
> - Networking: Standard networking layers should be
> distributed with the operating system. The network should
> be accessed either as a library or a "device". This
> networking "device" should be independant of the phyical
> medium (i.e.: serial port, parallel port, ethernet, token
> ring, etc.) that is used. And multiple protocols (i.e.:
> TCP/IP, DECnet, AMIGAnet (?)) should be able to share the
> same physical device. (A cheap ethernet interface would
> be nice.)
Why should it be distributed with the operating system? Most users would
have zero use for it. I believe the operating system should provide the
hooks (file protection and record locking) but not the protocols. Leave
something for the third parties to make money on! Those who need it, will
buy it, why bloat the Amiga operating system?
> Apple supplies networking with their Macintosh and even
> includes the physical port with which to do it.
> Networking support should be built into the file system
> (as DECnet on VMS is), and the programs should not have to
> worry about routing. The ability to cluster and/or remote
> mount file systems should be included (i.e.: VAXcluster,
> NFS, RFS) with the networking software.
As of 2.0 networking support is built into the operating system at least
at the filesystem level.
I think that individual networking solutions should be provided by the
third parties. I don't want to be in the situation where I am stuck with
one networking protocol and networking device. I don't want to pay for
networking hardware I don't intend to use.
>
> Overall, however, I am pleased with the Amiga line of computers and
> still recommend them to all my friends. Unfortunately, many of them
> want to buy NeXT computers (when they can afford them).
>
Your pleased and yet you do not wish to invest in any of the new technology?
You stated that while the current amiga line is nice, you think the A1000
is suitable for your needs, and yet you ask for essentially a workstation.
Commodore has not seen a nickel from you since 1985, and that is assuming
you bought your A1000 new.
To me, your arguments are a bit weak. You are saying to Commodore, please
keep building new boxes and let me judge them. If I find them adequent
I will drop a few bucks into them. While that is how most people buy, it
is not a real incentive for Commodore to react positively to your letter.
"Buy all you want, we will make more" applies to Commodore. :-)
I think most people miss the boat when they talk about the Amiga. The
miracle of the Amiga is power without the price. (Sorry Atari).
Getting the most computer for the least amount of coins is what
intriques me about Commodore and the Amiga. That should _never_ be
forgotten by Commodore or by the users.
You compared the Amiga to the NeXT and the Mac, and of course technically
that is ok. Just remember the features that you have asked for would
push the Amiga into the same price range as the NeXT and the high-end
Mac's.
Commodore is probably asking the question: Can we really afford to play
in the workstation arena? High-end systems are wonderful, I certainly
love my A3000, but at what point will the consumer say "at this price,
I ought to buy a Sun!". Commodore has to be real careful and not let
the perspective buyer ask this question.
I thought you had a good letter basically, I just think that you should
re-evaluate your opinion of the A3000.
It has:
- 32 bit memory
- 2 megabytes of chip memory (why is 8 meg necessary?)
- Ability to easily upgrade to a 68040
- AmigaDOS 2.0
- Built in de-interlacer
- UNIX SVR4.
On and on...
Commodore built your dream machine. I believe action is stronger than
words. Commodore answered your letter with the A3000 and the A3000T.
Now, before June 31st comes, go "Power-up!".
>
> Eagerly awaiting your reply,
>
>
>
> Val Kartchner
> --
> ____ ____ ____ |=============================================================|
> \ \/ \/ / | "vi? Because I don't have a real editor." -- U*x user |
> \Weber State/ |=============================================================|
> \University/ |Oberon| Internet: v...@csulx.weber.edu, v...@net23.weber.edu |
> \___/\___/ |Kenobi| Usenet: uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!bryce!netw23!val |
> Computer Science |=============================================================|
-mark=
+--------+ ==================================================
| \/ | Mark D. Manes "The Most lopsided deal since ..."
| /\ \/ | ma...@vger.nsu.edu
| / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA"
+--------+ ==================================================
"I protest Captain! I am not a merry man!" - Lt. Worf
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekig7!tekig5!danielh
From: dani...@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Daniel Hartman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: CBM & AMIGA
Keywords: CBM AMIGA
Message-ID: <2326@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM>
Date: 27 Jun 91 20:03:15 GMT
Sender: n...@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM
Lines: 84
Ok, I've been meaning to write a letter like this for a LONG time.
A couple of amiga users problems with commodore:
One thing that constantly amazes me about the Commodore Amiga is the fact that
CBM is still in business. It just boggles the mind that they could possibly
sell any computers with their kinds of business decisions.
For example, in Wisconsin (I don't know if it is any different elsewhere, but...
) I only know of 1 Commodore dealer in the state. Why? All the dealers I've
talked to have dropped Commodore because of a couple of reasons. First, CBM has
been pressuring them to sell their PC clone line. What a joke. Why would
anyone buy a Commodore PC when they could get something like a GATEWAY 2000 for
less and have a heck of a lot better computer? Second, for some unfathomable
reason, CBM has trouble getting parts to dealers. The three timese I have had
to have repairs (2 warranty, 1 my fault), it took a month, 4 months, and just
recently I got my 3000 back after 3 weeks. How hard can it be to ship out a
replacement motherboard? Reaallllyyyyy.
ULTRA BAD BUSINESS DECISIONS: (by CBM)
1. Making the 500 look like a C128 (no comments necessary)
2. Not putting a 68020 in the 2000 when it was introduced. (Might have stopped
companies from making incompatible software (with the accelerated proc.) from
the beginning.
3. Not including a hard drive with the 2000, or producing a cheap A500 or A1000
type computer with a hard drive. What kind of computer does NOT have a hard
drive? Sure, maybe a 500 might cost $800 instead of $500, but then, maybe
people would buy a 500HD instead of a Mac Classic.
4. (When they do it), putting 2.0 on ROMs for the 3000. It takes about 1 second
to load in the operating system from the harddrive, PLUS, its automaticly
put in faster RAM.
5. Not developing at least 8 bit color options by now. Yes, I know how hard it
is since they painted themselves into a corner with the custom chips, but
why didn't they just make faster versions of all the custom chips on the 3000
so they could handle higher resolutions & bitplanes from the start. I'd
be willing to pay another $1000 for such.
6. Not advertising. I don't mean televison commercials (how many people go, gee
I think I'll buy a PS/1 because I saw a TV commercial ?!?!?!?) What about
nice advertisments in general computer magazines, or the mac strategy - put
ads in PC Magazine and other popular PC magazines.
7. CDTV. I'd personally rather see better graphics capabilities, 68040 boards,
etc.
Now, it may sound like I'm biased against the low-end users. However, you don't
hear PC and XT owners dictating how the industries going, do you?
No, its the high end users with 386s and 486s who 'control' the direction.
Also, if 500s did come with hard drives, and more were sold, then they wouldn't
cost as much, would they?
Of course, Commodore does do some things right. For example, making the
computer and WB/KS in the first place. Personally, I feel WB is the best
single user OS there is; why not have the best personal computer there is to
go with it?
Maybe its just marketing and management. Something needs to change!
Anyway, here's what I feel needs to be done.
8 bit VGA quality graphics, with or without the custom chips support.
Cheap Amiga with native hard drive - less than $1000 w/o monitor.
Dump CDTV and put some R&D where it belongs - with the amiga.
Develope good relations with dealers and increase the number of dealers.
Get Unix 2.0 out with a 68040 and have a cheap, fast unix box, that happens
to run AMIGADOS. (backdoor method of selling amigas)
Either make a 386 bridgeboard or forget it (Cheaper just to buy another clone)
Decent advertising - maybe a full page add saying:
Sure, the mac is easy to learn, but is it easy to use? The Amiga is
infinitely more flexible, with GUI and CLI integrated, as well as
other features, such as AREXX and real multitasking - plus it cost
less than a mac and about the same as a clone.
PC Clone power/price ratio with a real operating system.
Or something to that effect.
Enough complaints for now.
Dan Hartman
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!
m.cs.uiuc.edu!vela!lmbailey
From: lmbai...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Laurana Bailey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM & AMIGA
Keywords: CBM AMIGA
Message-ID: <7595@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Date: 28 Jun 91 06:08:47 GMT
References: <2326@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM>
Organization: Lemming-Aid 1992 - Benefit Concert To Save The Lemmings
Lines: 15
Gee Dan, that sounds a lot like what I was saying only I didn't offer
any suggestions in my post. I hope you wore your asbestos clothing
because judging from the number of flames I've gotten, Ron (From Life
In Hell BBS) and the others should be trying to toast you sometime
soon. If you'd listen to Ron and his likes you'd think there wasn't
anything at all wrong at Commodore. It's the perfect computer company.
Good luck.
Laurana
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|Just another lemming... | Yet another Amiga maniac set loose |
| | on the world...and you thought things|
|lmbai...@vela.acs.oakland.edu | couldn't get any worse. |
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!noc.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!
uvaarpa!vger.nsu.edu!manes
From: ma...@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM & AMIGA
Message-ID: <1139.286b1bef@vger.nsu.edu>
Date: 28 Jun 91 15:22:22 GMT
References: <2326@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM>
Lines: 249
In article <2...@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM>, dani...@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Daniel Hartman)
writes:
Before I start when did it become fashionable to flame Commodore? It
seems to be the going trend. It is too bad the flames are so badly
misdirected. Sigh...
> Ok, I've been meaning to write a letter like this for a LONG time.
I pray you never send this letter. Let it die with this message as
well as the countless others you are going to generate. Perhaps that
is the real purpose of this posting?
>
> A couple of amiga users problems with commodore:
>
> One thing that constantly amazes me about the Commodore Amiga is the fact that
> CBM is still in business. It just boggles the mind that they could possibly
> sell any computers with their kinds of business decisions.
You bought one didn't you? That boggles my mind. If you thought Commodore
was so screwed up why did you participate? Did you think that you were
above all of these screwups? Did you think that you might be able to
change the course that -MB- has set? Doom is just over the hill and yet
you purchased an Amiga? Therapy may be in order.
>
> For example, in Wisconsin (I don't know if it is any different elsewhere, but...
> ) I only know of 1 Commodore dealer in the state. Why? All the dealers I've
> talked to have dropped Commodore because of a couple of reasons. First, CBM has
> been pressuring them to sell their PC clone line. What a joke. Why would
> anyone buy a Commodore PC when they could get something like a GATEWAY 2000 for
> less and have a heck of a lot better computer? Second, for some unfathomable
> reason, CBM has trouble getting parts to dealers. The three timese I have had
> to have repairs (2 warranty, 1 my fault), it took a month, 4 months, and just
> recently I got my 3000 back after 3 weeks. How hard can it be to ship out a
> replacement motherboard? Reaallllyyyyy.
1. Commodore has NEVER pressured us to sell their PC clones
(I work for a dealership) They did allow us to sell them, and that is
different.
2. I have a Commodore 286 PC-40 Series III. Never the first moments
trouble with compatibility or reliablity. Why do you think that
Commodore's PC clones stink?
3. We don't have problems getting parts. Of course some parts like
replacement A1000 keyboards were not easy to get, but all in all
we get what we order in a reasonable amount of time.
4. You bought an A3000! Why oh why? Doom is over the next hill!
5. Commodore dealers don't tend to tell the 'whole truth' when their
relationship with Commodore is not going well. The only relationship
that Commodore truly cares about is money. If the bills are paid
you have a good relationship. It is that simple. Some dealers
forget this principle.
>
> ULTRA BAD BUSINESS DECISIONS: (by CBM)
>
> 1. Making the 500 look like a C128 (no comments necessary)
That was a _great_ decision in my opinion. It is a very low-cost
design, further at the time, this gave the Amiga buyer an inexpensive
method of getting into Amiga computing. Prior to the A500 you
could only purchase the very expensive A1000.
>
> 2. Not putting a 68020 in the 2000 when it was introduced. (Might have stopped
> companies from making incompatible software (with the accelerated proc.) from
> the beginning.
Giggle. How quick we forget our history.
The 68020 was expensive in 1987. I doubt that you would have paid the
price, nor would have most.
The point of the A500 and the A2000 was to replace the A1000. The most
common complaint about the A1000 had to do with it being too in-expensive
for business use and too expensive for home use. The A500 answered the
low-end and the A2000 answered the major question of the time which was
expandability.
>
> 3. Not including a hard drive with the 2000, or producing a cheap A500 or A1000
> type computer with a hard drive. What kind of computer does NOT have a hard
> drive? Sure, maybe a 500 might cost $800 instead of $500, but then, maybe
> people would buy a 500HD instead of a Mac Classic.
If they had included a hard disk with the A2000 we would not have Supra,
GVP, IVS and other hardware developers. Do you really wish this? There
is a reason things are designed the way they are. Sometimes hardware
capability is traded for improving the marketplace. Improving the
marketplace allows the improvement in hardware. It is a tight circle
that Commodore seems to understand.
>
> 4. (When they do it), putting 2.0 on ROMs for the 3000. It takes about 1 second
> to load in the operating system from the harddrive, PLUS, its automaticly
> put in faster RAM.
They are going to put 2.0 in ROM for all machines (a500/a2xxx/a3xxx).
What is the beef?
>
> 5. Not developing at least 8 bit color options by now. Yes, I know how hard it
> is since they painted themselves into a corner with the custom chips, but
> why didn't they just make faster versions of all the custom chips on the 3000
> so they could handle higher resolutions & bitplanes from the start. I'd
> be willing to pay another $1000 for such.
>
I believe you already have 8 bit graphics now. If you want more then may
I suggest you look at any of the number of 18-24 bit solutions that are
now available.
> 6. Not advertising. I don't mean televison commercials (how many people go, gee
> I think I'll buy a PS/1 because I saw a TV commercial ?!?!?!?) What about
> nice advertisments in general computer magazines, or the mac strategy - put
> ads in PC Magazine and other popular PC magazines.
>
They _are_ advertising! I see Amiga ads all of the time in print. TV is
expensive. If I had a limited budget, I would opt for the most market
coverage instead of a flash in the pan which TV is. You need a lot of
flashes to maket TV effective.
> 7. CDTV. I'd personally rather see better graphics capabilities, 68040 boards,
> etc.
Give me a break. You want a $4000 CDTV? Who the hell would they sell
that too? The power CDTV user... give me a break.
>
> Now, it may sound like I'm biased against the low-end users. However, you don't
> hear PC and XT owners dictating how the industries going, do you?
> No, its the high end users with 386s and 486s who 'control' the direction.
> Also, if 500s did come with hard drives, and more were sold, then they wouldn't
> cost as much, would they?
Actually it _was_ the XT and AT owners that did drive that market.
Competition breeds improvement. Of course it is debatable as to whether
there has been improvement in the PC community. :-)
>
> Of course, Commodore does do some things right. For example, making the
> computer and WB/KS in the first place. Personally, I feel WB is the best
> single user OS there is; why not have the best personal computer there is to
> go with it?
Commodore did not invent these things, Amiga Corp. did. Commodore marketed
the machine and in my opinion have improved the hardware and the software
consistantly this last six years.
>
> Maybe its just marketing and management. Something needs to change!
I think the change is needed at the customer level. :-)
There should be a test given to any C64 user who wants to buy an
Amiga. This test should have three questions:
1. Do you believe that all software should be free?
2. Do you believe that Commodore 'owes' you for your previous
purchase?
3. Do you believe that Commodore is a 'social-service' or
should be?
If the answer is "YES" to any of these questions, the dealership should
_not_ sell an Amiga to this customer. The dealership should throw
this bum out into the street with a map to ComputerLand, the land of
plenty.
In some ways I think the A500 is the worst thing that ever happened
to the Amiga. I got rid of my c64 to escape the mentality that is
expressed in this message. I know this guy just purchased an Amiga
3000 ... I'll bet his first machine was a c64 and then the A500.
I am tired of the "cheap" New-Age Bash Commodore attitude that Amiga
owners seem to be have that consists of:
"Put a 68040, 24 bit graphics, 32 bit stereo sound, make it PC compatible
and make sure none of my software breaks all for $50" and "Oh, I want
a six year warranty and if I am not happy within 10 years I want my
money back!"
>
> Anyway, here's what I feel needs to be done.
>
> 8 bit VGA quality graphics, with or without the custom chips support.
Repeat after me:
VGA sucks hind-tit...VGA sucks hind-tit...
> Cheap Amiga with native hard drive - less than $1000 w/o monitor.
Perhaps you can sign up for the new "give an Amiga" program that
Commodore has. I call it the Power up program. Costs a bit more
than a $1000 but it does give you a hard disk.
> Dump CDTV and put some R&D where it belongs - with the amiga.
CDTV is an Amiga! CDTV is going to (hopefully) be the new cash
cow. It may be the solution to a big part of Commodores woes.
Dump CDTV? Absolutely not!
> Develope good relations with dealers and increase the number of dealers.
We have a _good_ relationship with Commodore and really would not want
to see a slew of new dealers in our area. :-)
Our dealership pays its bills! Suggest that to your dealership.
> Get Unix 2.0 out with a 68040 and have a cheap, fast unix box, that happens
> to run AMIGADOS. (backdoor method of selling amigas)
See "Power Up" deal.
> Either make a 386 bridgeboard or forget it (Cheaper just to buy another clone)
NO! Spend R&D on the Amiga. Revise the bridgeboards and make them
cheaper, like $100-$200. That way you can't say "buy a clone ... its
cheaper"
> Decent advertising - maybe a full page add saying:
> Sure, the mac is easy to learn, but is it easy to use? The Amiga is
> infinitely more flexible, with GUI and CLI integrated, as well as
> other features, such as AREXX and real multitasking - plus it cost
> less than a mac and about the same as a clone.
> PC Clone power/price ratio with a real operating system.
Please stay out of advertising? Please?
>
> Or something to that effect.
>
> Enough complaints for now.
Yes.. enough already!
>
> Dan Hartman
^^^^^^^^^^^
Another MB wannabe...
-mark=
ma...@vger.nsu.edu
"What this world needs is a good cheap $5 plasma weapon"
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk
From: pet...@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM & AMIGA
Keywords: CBM AMIGA
Message-ID: <1429@cbmger.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jun 91 07:12:32 GMT
References: <2326@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: pet...@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany
Lines: 72
In article <2...@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM> dani...@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Daniel Hartman) writes:
>
>ULTRA BAD BUSINESS DECISIONS: (by CBM)
>
>1. Making the 500 look like a C128 (no comments necessary)
No issue any more today.
>2. Not putting a 68020 in the 2000 when it was introduced. (Might have stopped
> companies from making incompatible software (with the accelerated proc.) from
> the beginning.
Remember: Back then when the A2000 was introduced, the 020 was expensive
like several computers on their own, way too expensive.
>3. Not including a hard drive with the 2000, or producing a cheap A500 or A1000
> type computer with a hard drive. What kind of computer does NOT have a hard
> drive? Sure, maybe a 500 might cost $800 instead of $500, but then, maybe
> people would buy a 500HD instead of a Mac Classic.
Yes, and this difference $800 to $500 really makes it.
>4. (When they do it), putting 2.0 on ROMs for the 3000. It takes about 1 second
> to load in the operating system from the harddrive, PLUS, its automaticly
> put in faster RAM.
Sorry, I hear more people complaining about this 'kludge'.
>7. CDTV. I'd personally rather see better graphics capabilities, 68040 boards,
> etc.
>
>Now, it may sound like I'm biased against the low-end users. However, you don't
>hear PC and XT owners dictating how the industries going, do you?
>No, its the high end users with 386s and 486s who 'control' the direction.
>Also, if 500s did come with hard drives, and more were sold, then they wouldn't
>cost as much, would they?
It's simply because Commodore sees these things completely different,
that we are still alive! The A500 and also the Commodore XTs (the latter
at least in Europe) sell like hell. It's a *mass market*. In this mass
market Commodore is the clear leader (at least in Europe), so we can
make our living with it, no luxury though, but we survive. *Any dollar*
that you add to the price - and be it for a real valuable add-on - is
directly affecting sales figures. So Commodore must very deeply research
which add-on will pay and which not. Until now, this job was done nicely,
in that the named mass market is stable. And the last decision, introducing
the CDTV, aims in the same direction: to the masses, to every family that
also has a TV or a stereo. If this works similarly, there will be another
possibility to earn the living.
And considering the high-end machines: Yes, Commodore is also in this
business (do you know we sell 386's and 486's here?). And here we also
sell these devices well, because we have a well-known name. Yes, Commodore
is known as a computer company by every European, and yes, most of them
still remember more the 'game' computers, but that doesn't hurt so much,
because they still recognize that it's a powerful, market-leading
company. Yes, here in Germany, we compete directly with IBM on the
PC market! (At least counting devices, when counting values, we are one
place further behind, 3rd perhaps, don't have the current figures at
hand.)
Now, what can we learn from this: If you have a market segment, you
have to keep it. Don't give it away for some ambitious dreams. Then,
when you have this solid base, you may moderately expand into other
market segments. If this works well, you have a second basis and can
gather resources for yet another. And so on. And on this way Commodore
has steadily grown during the last few years, and I really hope it
will continue so.
--
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk