Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,
comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!
ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!kaz
From: k...@iastate.edu (Jeff T Kaczmarek)
Subject: Considering switching to IBM
Message-ID: <1992Mar21.053732.17066@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: n...@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
References: <Paula_Lieberman.04co@amicol.UUCP> <mykes.1423@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 05:37:32 GMT
Lines: 46
I have an Amiga 3000 with a Progressive Peripherals & Software 68040
accelerator card. I have 4 megs of memory (2 megs chip and 2 megs fast).
Basically, I am thinking about selling my computer to buy a 486 with
Super VGA, Sound Blaster Pro, and CD-Rom drive. I would probably lose
no money in the deal. Here are my reasons:
1. Sound - IBM now (within the past few months) have sound cards
which greatly surpass Amiga sound capabilities. Support
is another matter, but the raw ability is now in the IBM's.
2. Graphics - Amiga graphics now SUCK. I mean, we have no standard
past 640x400 with 16 colors and ham.
3. Speed - Yes, Windows is pitifully slow. So is WorkBench.
I have on of the fastest amigas available and
if I put it in 16 or even 8 colors it is pitifully
slow. I mean the cpu is hogged to open a drawer!
4. Future - I don't see Commodore improving graphics and sound to be
supported and affordable to all Amiga users (Games, DTP,
Ray tracing, all applications). IBM's have this already.
Don't get me wrong, I detest MS-DOS, only slightly less than Mac System 7.
But I can't stand this catch-up race we have to get technologies available
long ago on other platforms. Come on, Commodore! The Amiga used to be
the cutting edge of graphics! It's now closer to the Apple II than any
other platform.
I don't want to sell my Amiga. I like the DOS. I like the people. I like
the machine. I feel I must. If anyone has any REAL info on the future
of the amiga (if it's confidential I won't tell anybody), especially as
far as graphics, sound, CD-ROM support, etc., please mail me. I don't
want to make a really bad mistake in switching, but this is getting REALLY
old!
Jeff Kaczmarek (k...@iastate.edu)
=============================================================================
"10,000 Lemmings can't be wrong"
-Brian Allen
=============================================================================
Sure, IBMs and Macs multitask fine, you just can't run more than one program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,
comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!nap42487
From: nap42...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Message-ID: <1992Apr3.204240.1975@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: use...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <mykes.1423@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> <1992Mar21.053732.17066@news.iastate.edu>
<92032329256@genesis.nred.ma.us> <1992Mar27.210100.13173@cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 20:42:40 GMT
Lines: 32
I want to clear up some misconceptions about the speed of Intel -based
computers and Amigas. First, when the person who first started this with his
thought of switching to IBM posted something about the Amiga, it did not sound
too fast. He had the Amiga in 16 color mode, and his downloading in the background
could not go fast enough to do something as small as downloading when he used the
Workbench to open a drawer or move something. A Windows machine would
never go that slow (and it is in 16 colors, with a lot more Graphics than the
plain and boring -looking Workbench.
The really sad thing about this is this guy had a 68040 accelerator!!!! He also
tested multitasking with a 25 MHz 486 and it was only slightly slower than
his 68040 accelerated Amiga. The 25 MHz 486 is only about 76 percent as fast
as a 68040 at 25 MHz as far as raw speed goes, in executing instructions.
(The 25 MHz 486 will still beat the 040 in most identical application tasks
because of it's superior instruction set. This is another advantage of Intel
processor based computers over Amigas.) And if he used a faster OS, like the
new OS/2 2.0, he will see a bigger performance boost in multitasking.
If Workbench was set in 16 colors, the environment would be slower than
Windows in 16 colors, and the Workbench has hardly any graphics. (If you
compare the Workbench to Windows, system 7.0, OS/2, or other truly GRAPHICAL
user interface, you will see the Workbench hardly qualifies as a GUI.)
Also, I challenge Amiga owners to run their fastest serious app (as in their
fastest CAD program, spreadsheet, or other processor intensive app for high
end work) and compare it to the speed of the fastest app for that purpose
available for the IBM under OS/2 2.0 (or a Windows app under Windows 3.1)
For CAD, go with the standard, AutoCAD, but I do not know if it is the fastest.
For a spreadsheet, go with Lotus 1-2-3 3.1 or 2.3. Under windows 3.1, go with
Excel. These might not be the fastest, but they will do. You will see that
OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1 are very fast.
Nish Patel nap42...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!
appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!sun!amdcad!netcomsv!mork!harp
From: h...@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,
comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Message-ID: <9amjsh#.harp@netcom.com>
Date: 4 Apr 92 20:24:15 GMT
References: <mykes.1423@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> <1992Mar21.053732.17066@news.iastate.edu>
<92032329256@genesis.nred.ma.us> <1992Mar27.210100.13173@cs.mcgill.ca>
<1992Apr3.204240.1975@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 130
[Hey guy, hit return in something under 80 colums! I had to reformat this
to keep emacs from going into wrap-mania.]
nap42...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>I want to clear up some misconceptions about the speed of Intel -based
>computers and Amigas.
Well, I certainly hope that after you read this, you'll be all cleared
up. ;-)
>First, when the person who first started this
>with his thought of switching to IBM posted something about the Amiga,
>it did not sound too fast. He had the Amiga in 16 color mode, and his
>downloading in the background could not go fast enough to do something
>as small as downloading when he used the Workbench to open a drawer or
>move something.
This is simply false. _IF_ an Amiga user actually told you (quite a
big "if" considering your apparent ignorance about multitasking on the
Amiga) then that person was doing something _seriously_ wrong. I
can't even think of what you could do on an accelerated Amiga (as you
mention below) that could interfere with a transfer.
Actually, there is one way to do it. If you set the priority [that's
a thing that _real_ multitasking systems have, for you MacOS and
Windows types ;) ] of the term significantly lower than everything
else, then you'd still have to be doing a streaming (as in Zmodem)
transfer at around 38.4Kbaud. Still, since GUI operations such as
opening a drawer are disk-bound, you'd have enough spare CPU time
to do the transfer. Anything that was CPU-bound, though, would keep
the terminal from getting much CPU time, though. That's what task
priorities are _for_.
BTW, there is no such thing as "downloading in the background" on the
Amiga. _Simultaneously_ downloading while doing something else is
what your friend would be doing. "Background" and "Foreground" don't
apply to tasks under Amiga's Exec. Things are done by task priorities
if you want to control the amount of CPU a task gets (which I find
that I rarely if ever need to do, since it's pretty smooth already).
Also, I typically transfer files while doing a hell of a lot more
than just mouse around in the GUI with no problems at all. Let me
describe what I was doing just yesterday, for example. Just for
reference, I have an Amiga 3000, which is a 25Mhz 030/882 box.
I was simultaneously downloading files at 9600bps V42bis speeds
(pulling a good 1100 cps with compressed files), converting JPEG
images around in 24 bits, backing up one of my hard drive partitions
to tape, and freeing up some space on another of my hard drive
partitions. This is a normal session for me. (Yes, I do make
backups approximately weekly.)
>A Windows machine would never go that slow (and it is
>in 16 colors, with a lot more Graphics than the plain and boring
>-looking Workbench.
Actually, on my 33Mhz 386 at work, Windows quite often "does that".
Doing GUI things severely interferes with other work being done.
>The really sad thing about this is this guy had a 68040
>accelerator!!!! He also tested multitasking with a 25 MHz 486 and it
>was only slightly slower than his 68040 accelerated Amiga. The 25 MHz
>486 is only about 76 percent as fast as a 68040 at 25 MHz as far as
>raw speed goes, in executing instructions. (The 25 MHz 486 will still
>beat the 040 in most identical application tasks because of it's
>superior instruction set. his is another advantage of Intel processor
>based computers over Amigas.) And if he used a faster OS, like the new
>OS/2 2.0, he will see a bigger performance boost in multitasking.
You didn't post this on April 1st, did you?
"Superior instruction set?" WHAT?!
Also, let's not forget that the largest percentage of 486's out there
are still running in V8086 mode, with only a few limited-use
registers, segment:offset memory accessing, etc.
Now, considering that even _you_ admit the raw horsepower difference
between the 040 and the 486, how can you _seriously_ think that you
get more net results out of it?
As for OS/2 2.0, there is quite a bit more overhead in it than in
AmigaDOS. This is not a Bad Thing, but it is the result of the
extra things that OS/2 2.0 does over AmigaDOS. However, you can't
actually believe that you're going to get more speed out of OS/2
than AmigaDOS, can you?
C'mon. I thought we put the "AmigaDOS is THE real-time multitasking
system" argument to rest years ago. [OS9ers are gonna flame me for
that. :) ]
>If Workbench was set in 16 colors, the environment would be slower
>than Windows in 16 colors, and the Workbench has hardly any graphics.
>(If you compare the Workbench to Windows, system 7.0, OS/2, or other
>truly GRAPHICAL user interface, you will see the Workbench hardly
>qualifies as a GUI.)
You're simply wrong. That's all there is to it. Have you ever
actually _used_ the Workbench? Apparently not...
>Also, I challenge Amiga owners to run their fastest serious app (as in
>their fastest CAD program, spreadsheet, or other processor intensive
>app for high end work) and compare it to the speed of the fastest app
>for that purpose available for the IBM under OS/2 2.0 (or a Windows
>app under Windows 3.1) For CAD, go with the standard, AutoCAD, but I
>do not know if it is the fastest. For a spreadsheet, go with Lotus
>1-2-3 3.1 or 2.3. Under windows 3.1, go with Excel. These might not be
>the fastest, but they will do. You will see that OS/2 2.0 and Windows
>3.1 are very fast.
OK. Now try to run several apps together under Windows.
WHOOPS! Degrading multitasking!
Now try to run two terminals under Windows (or DesqView for that
matter).
DOUBLE WHOOPS! (For the unitiated, I've never seen two terminals
run under Windows or DesqView (yes, through different serial ports)
for longer than about 5 minutes before a crash.)
OS/2 can handle these situations _relatively_ painlessly, but not
quite as smoothly as AmigaDOS.
>Nish Patel nap42...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Cleared up yet? ;-)
--
---------------Greg-Harp----------------h...@netcom.netcom.com---------------
"We're not hitchhiking anymore. We're riding!" -- Ren
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,
comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!
uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!nap42487
From: nap42...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Message-ID: <1992Apr5.005604.28229@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: use...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <mykes.1423@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> <1992Mar21.053732.17066@news.iastate.edu>
<92032329256@genesis.nred.ma.us> <1992Mar27.210100.13173@cs.mcgill.ca>
<1992Apr3.204240.1975@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <9amjsh#.harp@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 00:56:04 GMT
Lines: 25
Gregory Harp talks about how great the Amiga OS is compared to other OS's, and
then says things which prove he has no idea what he is talking about.
first, you can set priorities for DOS apps being multitaskedunder Windows.
Second, about the 486's using V8086 mode: This mode does not mean you can only
use the 8086 instruction set. That is wrong. V8086 mode just traps certain
things and handles little bits and pieces to allow multitasking when the program
is expecting a single tasking environment, i.e. DO. As an example, other
programs that use the 8086 mode, like Turbo Debugger, allow 386 instructions.
The debugger runs in one v8086, while the program being debugged, which can
use 386 instructions set, run in another. There is a restriction on using
protected mode, which is what is used to access memory over 1MB and to set
up the v8086's, since then the program can mess things up.
But Operating systems, like Windows and Desqview, have a simple add on that
allows to handle a program trying to use protected mode (which is a program
trying to access memory above 1 MB, basically.) If the DOS extender used for the
program trying to access memory over 1 MB through protected mode follows the
DPMI standard, then it will work. Programs that use VCPI will not. Those that
are using VCPI are now converting to DPMI (AutoCAD, for example). So that
they will work under Windows. (I think Desqview can handle VCPI).
Nish Patel nap42...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.misc,
comp.sys.amiga.multimedia,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!harp
From: h...@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Considering switching to IBM
Message-ID: <2bnj-_c.harp@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 20:59:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
References: <mykes.1423@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> <1992Mar21.053732.17066@news.iastate.edu>
<92032329256@genesis.nred.ma.us> <1992Mar27.210100.13173@cs.mcgill.ca>
<1992Apr3.204240.1975@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <9amjsh#.harp@netcom.com>
<1992Apr5.005604.28229@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
[Followups to c.s.a.advocacy! And hit <RETURN> in something under 80
columns!]
nap42...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>Gregory Harp talks about how great the Amiga OS is compared to other
>OS's, and then says things which prove he has no idea what he is
>talking about.
Hmmm... Really?
First of all, I was not sitting there just claiming that the Amiga OS
is "so much better" etc. If you have been reading c.s.a.advocacy for
a while you know that I do not do such things. I'm an advocate of
quite a few OSes, one of them being that Amiga's.
What I _won't_ do is sit around and watch you make false claims about
what the Amiga can or cannot do. I responded directly to your claim
that the Amiga could not handle a download while mousing around in
the Workbench, which is simply not true. I can handle that and quite
a bit more, as I explained in my previous response.
You know, the "So-and-so has no idea what he/she is talking about"
claim seems to have become trendy around c.s.a.advocacy when the
person responding doesn't really have anything better to say...
I assure you that in this case I _do_ know what I am talking about.
I have a good deal of OS experience and development time on Amigas
and PCs. It is unlikely, from what you say, that you have ever
used and Amiga. Now, to whom does that give the benefit of
experience, eh?
>first, you can set priorities for DOS apps being multitaskedunder Windows.
Yes, but the time-slicing method used is inefficient, not to mention
that most DOS apps rely totally on polling loops, which are the bane
of true multitasking systems.
>Second, about the 486's using V8086 mode: This mode does not mean you can only
>use the 8086 instruction set. That is wrong.
Did I _say_ that you couldn't use the extra instructions? NO. Why do
you bother to dispute things I didn't say?
What I _did_ say is that the majority of 486's are still running a
segmented, crippled OS. The power of the 486 is being wasted here.
The _only_ places I've seen a 486 (or a 386) being used to its
potential were under Unix or OS/2 2.0. Given that most 486's are
running DOS and Windows...
>V8086 mode just traps certain things and handles little bits and
>pieces to allow multitasking when the program
>is expecting a single tasking environment, i.e. DO. As an example, other
>programs that use the 8086 mode, like Turbo Debugger, allow 386 instructions.
>The debugger runs in one v8086, while the program being debugged, which can
>use 386 instructions set, run in another. There is a restriction on using
>protected mode, which is what is used to access memory over 1MB and to set
>up the v8086's, since then the program can mess things up.
I _know_ what V8086 mode is, and I don't recall asking you. Please do
not answer questions nobody asked. It is quite unlikely that we are
interested in your answer.
However, now that you've brought it up, you can't use several programs
that run in V8086 mode together. Try EMM386 or QEMM with Turbo
Debugger 386, for example. Nope...
So much for the V8086 mode being useful for multitasking. The
programmers who have been using it come from DOS up-bringings and
still think they own the entire machine.
>But Operating systems, like Windows and Desqview, have a simple add on
>that allows to handle a program trying to use protected mode (which is
>a program trying to access memory above 1 MB, basically.) If the DOS
>extender used for the program trying to access memory over 1 MB
>through protected mode follows the DPMI standard, then it will work.
>Programs that use VCPI will not. Those that are using VCPI are now
>converting to DPMI (AutoCAD, for example). So that they will work
>under Windows. (I think Desqview can handle VCPI).
Yes, and most of these updates are currently vaporware... Face it.
It has taken over 10 years for PCs to even standardize such things
as extended memory access. The number of people who have the old
versions of many packages who won't bother to upgrade are going
to keep the PC in the dark ages, where it belongs IMO.
Greg
--
---------------Greg-Harp----------------h...@netcom.netcom.com---------------
"We're not hitchhiking anymore. We're riding!" -- Ren