Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Archive » net.micro.amiga » Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279518] Tue, 17 December 1985 07:00 Go to next message
farren is currently offline  farren
Messages: 36
Registered: November 1985
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: well.352
Posted: Tue Dec 17 07:00:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 00:44:25 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1186 net.micro.atari:2015

In article <840@h-sc1.UUCP>, breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes:
 >  It would be much more helpful if you stated WHY you believe that the
 >  AMIGA is better than the ST. Since I may buy a new computer soon, I
 >  would like to hear real information about the two machines. So far, the
 >  main differences appear to be:
 >  
 >  (a) the ST is half the price of the AMIGA.

     Approximately true.  Depends on whether you want color or not.

 >  (b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the
 >      ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed.

    Absolutely false.  The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors
    which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the
    CPU were responsible for display updates.  Note that the coprocessors
    also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well.

 >  (c) the AMIGA graphics is said to be not usable at a 
 >      resolution of 640x400 for text or serious graphics applications.

    Probably true, but only until monitors become available that address
    the special problems with 640 X 400 mode (using color - there are mono-
    chrome monitors which will work quite well at 640 X 400, and the ST, as I
    understand it, forces monochrome at that resolution anyway)

 >  (d) the AMIGA is said to be more expandable than the ST.

    Yes.  The AMIGA has the system bus available on a connector on the side
    of the machine, and expansion cards are already becoming available.

 >  (e) the AMIGA has a multitasking operating system. Definitely a big plus,
 >      but as soon as OS9 is available for either machine, this does not
 >      matter anymore.
 
    Perhaps, perhaps not.  The Amiga's OS ( NOT the AmigaDOS, but the under-
    lying kernal ) was specifically designed to take advantage of the large
    amount of intelligence held in the coprocessors.  Unless the OS9 imple-
    mentation is done VERY well, it probably will lose in efficiency.  Note
    that OS9 was probably not designed for a high-power graphics environment,
    and Amiga's EXEC was.

-- 
           Mike Farren
           uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren
           Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667
           USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279537 is a reply to message #279518] Wed, 18 December 1985 14:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
breuel is currently offline  breuel
Messages: 16
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.845
Posted: Wed Dec 18 14:36:41 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 05:34:17 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 45
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1208 net.micro.atari:2033

Thank you very much for replying to my questions. Since I believe that
other potential buyers might be intersted in this discussion, I am
following up to the net.

||(b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the
||    ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed.
|
|    Absolutely false.  The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors
|    which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the
|    CPU were responsible for display updates.  Note that the coprocessors
|    also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well.

Let me state the question more precisely: is there any difference in
speed between the ST and the AMIGA when either machine is just
displaying a bit image, without any active painting or sound production?

||(c) the AMIGA graphics is said to be not usable at a 
||    resolution of 640x400 for text or serious graphics applications.
|
|    Probably true, but only until monitors become available that address
|    the special problems with 640 X 400 mode (using color - there are mono-
|    chrome monitors which will work quite well at 640 X 400, and the ST, as I
|    understand it, forces monochrome at that resolution anyway)

Again, let me state the question more precisely. I thought the problem
with the AMIGA 640x400 display is that it is interlaced, and that therefore
every line only gets re-freshed at a rate of 30Hz. The only way to
'fix' this would be to use high-persistence phosphors, clearly not
a desirable solution. Is this true? How does the ST deal with
this problem?

And there are a few more questions that came to my mind in the meantime:
-- are there MacWrite type word processors available for either machine?
   How easy are they to adapt to a specific printer?
-- what terminal emulators are available for the two machines? Are
   they reliable? What protocols do they support for file transfer?
-- what graphics design programs (in the style of MacDraw) are available
   for either machine? How usable are they?
-- what is the scoop on the difference between disk capacity and disk
   speed between the ST and the AMIGA?
-- are there versions of either machine which will work with BOTH
   120/220V 50/60Hz?

						Thanks,
						Thomas.
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279539 is a reply to message #279518] Thu, 19 December 1985 10:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bobh is currently offline  bobh
Messages: 55
Registered: September 1985
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: pedsgd.382
Posted: Thu Dec 19 10:53:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 05:37:57 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CONCURRENT Computer Corp, Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 31
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1210 net.micro.atari:2035

In article <352@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes:
 > In article <840@h-sc1.UUCP>, breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes:
 >>  It would be much more helpful if you stated WHY you believe that the
 >>  AMIGA is better than the ST. Since I may buy a new computer soon, I
 >>  would like to hear real information about the two machines. So far, the
 >>  main differences appear to be:
 >>  
 >>  (b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the
 >>      ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed.
 > 
 >     Absolutely false.  The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors
 >     which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the
 >     CPU were responsible for display updates.  Note that the coprocessors
 >     also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well.

Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the
display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors
must still contend for access to memory.  YES, I/O can proceed independently,
etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time.  This
HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000.

BTW, the ST also has an I/O co-processor, so presence vs. non-presence
arguments in favor of the Amiga are inappropriate.

					Bob Halloran
=============================================================================
UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, most Action Central}!vax135\
		       	 {pesnta, topaz, princeton}!petsd!pedsgd!bobh 
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own.
Quote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter Thompson
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279544 is a reply to message #279518] Wed, 18 December 1985 11:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freed is currently offline  freed
Messages: 38
Registered: October 1985
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: aum.409
Posted: Wed Dec 18 11:44:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 01:23:32 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Aurora Systems Bunch
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1215 net.micro.atari:2050

 >>  (b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the
 >>      ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed.
 >  
 >      Absolutely false.  The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors
 >      which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the
 >      CPU were responsible for display updates.  Note that the coprocessors
 >      also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well.

how do you explain the much better drystone results of the ST?
(the compiler can not be the only thing responsible)

 >>  (c) the AMIGA graphics is said to be not usable at a 
 >>      resolution of 640x400 for text or serious graphics applications.
 >  
 >      Probably true, but only until monitors become available that address
 >      the special problems with 640 X 400 mode (using color - there are mono-
 >      chrome monitors which will work quite well at 640 X 400, and the ST, as I
 >      understand it, forces monochrome at that resolution anyway)

A *BIG* point about the ST is that 640 x 400, non-interlaced monochrome creates
a very good looking window environment that the AMIGA cannot match.

 >>  (e) the AMIGA has a multitasking operating system. Definitely a big plus,
 >>      but as soon as OS9 is available for either machine, this does not
 >>      matter anymore.
 >   
 >      Perhaps, perhaps not.  The Amiga's OS ( NOT the AmigaDOS, but the under-
 >      lying kernal ) was specifically designed to take advantage of the large
 >      amount of intelligence held in the coprocessors.  Unless the OS9 imple-
 >      mentation is done VERY well, it probably will lose in efficiency.  Note
 >      that OS9 was probably not designed for a high-power graphics environment,
 >      and Amiga's EXEC was.

I do not think that your argument here is complete. It seems that I could argue
similarly in favor of the ST.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Erik James Freed
			   Aurora Systems
			   San Francisco, CA
			   {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279546 is a reply to message #279518] Thu, 19 December 1985 09:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
perry is currently offline  perry
Messages: 37
Registered: November 1985
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: well.370
Posted: Thu Dec 19 09:12:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 01:24:50 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <409@aum.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 28
Summary: GMC is much better than Chevy

Some people wage religious  wars over the silliest things. As in the case
of which is better: a blazer from  GMC or  a blazer  from Chevy. A friend
at GM tells me there are only 12 differences in the parts list for either
product - 7 of them  are  name  plates.  So  you  tell me - is this worth
arguing about?

The debate over which machine  is better currently resurging yet again in
this newsgroup is damned silly. Those  poor folks who bought atari's have
to justify their brain damage and will  do  so  now matter what arguments
from the AMIGA side are tendered. Leave them alone!

It is beneath the dignity of owners of the AMIGA P.C. to respond to atari
people's claim of machine supremacy.

It's a waste of time:

	you bought your - they bought theirs 
	lets say one side (even theirs) is right - are you going to go out
	and buy another machine lest ye be cast down by society? Neither are
	they.

Just leave them alone.

(as my firend dave (@heurikon) says:

take a 520 st, put it in a dark closet and leave it alone. when it grows
up it'll be an amiga).
	
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279549 is a reply to message #279518] Thu, 19 December 1985 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bruceb is currently offline  bruceb
Messages: 41
Registered: October 1985
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: amiga.421
Posted: Thu Dec 19 14:29:05 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 04:42:31 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <845@h-sc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: bruceb@hunter.UUCP (Bruce Barrett)
Distribution: net
Organization: Commodore-Amiga Inc., 983 University Ave #D, Los Gatos CA 95030
Lines: 40
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1220 net.micro.atari:2052

In article <845@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes:
 > -- are there MacWrite type word processors available for either machine?
(Answeres given for Amiga computer, note my bias)
Textcraft is the only thing I am aware of.  It is oriented toward "home"
or "new small business" use.  On a 256k machine it can handle about 6-10
pages of text.  One font in many styles (bold, italics,...) is supported.
 >    How easy are they to adapt to a specific printer?
Trivial if you select one of the "standard" supported printers:
	Alphapro 101, Brother HR15xl, CBM MPS1000, Diablo (630, Advantage,
	C-150), Epson (fx series and JX80), HP laserjet (and plus),
	Okimate 20, Qume leterpro 20.
If you do not select any of the above you can select "generic".
NOTE: All "right-thinking" software uses standard Amiga (ISO, DEC, Amiga)
escape sequences to the PRT: device.  If the attached printer can do the
requested operation the Amiga "translates" the command for the printer
and issues it.  Printer independent software is a snap!  (The "generic"
printer is assumed to have no features.)

 > -- what terminal emulators are available for the two machines? Are
 >    they reliable? What protocols do they support for file transfer?
Several available, see past postings. Companies posted include:
	Micro-Systems Software, IncModem7/Xmodem, XmodemCRC, and 
	  Hayes-Smartcomm file xfer protocols
	ELCom's ElTerm data communications package. both KERMIT and 
	  XMODEM built in. ansi terminal emulation
	Maxicorp, Maxicomm package.
	Commodore is marketing one also.
 > -- what graphics design programs (in the style of MacDraw) are available
 >    for either machine? How usable are they?
	Graphicraft (Commodore Amiga) and Delux Paint from Electronic arts.
	Both seen to have the limitation the the painting cannot exceed
	the size of the screen.  EA supports 640x400 (interlaced).
	You may want/need more than 512k of RAM.

--BruceB
Disclaimer: I work for Commodore-Amiga.  I have played with TextCraft and
Graphicraft alot, but not with Deluxe Paint or any of the Comm packages.
Everything above is, undoubtedly TM or Registered.  I hope all of the
above companies prosper and continue to come out with new produces for
the Amiga.
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279559 is a reply to message #279518] Fri, 20 December 1985 15:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RJ[1] is currently offline  RJ[1]
Messages: 25
Registered: December 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: amiga.425
Posted: Fri Dec 20 15:45:02 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 00:11:57 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <382@pedsgd.UUCP>
Reply-To: rj@wizard.UUCP (Robert J. Mical)
Distribution: net
Organization: Commodore-Amiga Inc., 983 University Ave #D, Los Gatos CA 95030
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1230 net.micro.atari:2060
Summary: Amiga interleaves its bus access

In article <382@pedsgd.UUCP> bobh@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Halloran) writes:
 > Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the
 > display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors
 > must still contend for access to memory.  YES, I/O can proceed independently,
 > etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time.  This
 > HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000.

This is true.  But don't forget that the Amiga interleaves its access
to the bus, using every available cycle, even the odd ones, whenever
possible.  All of the DMA, including the display processors, use the
odd cycles.  This enormously cuts down the contention for the bus.
The result of this is that the 68000 and other co-processors get to run 
at full speed regardless of display processing.  Only when the
display gets elaborate -- 640 across (either interlaced or not) and
4 bit-planes (16 colors onscreen) -- is there a significant lag
in CPU performance.
    The same goes for the other DMA devices:  sprite, disk, and audio.
With a simple display, a few sprites and some simple tones playing,
you can fill a disk buffer and still have truly minimal interference
with the performance of the 68000.

     ---------------------
     -     Greetings     -
     - =Robert J. Mical= -
     -  Commodore-Amiga  -
     ---------------------
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279570 is a reply to message #279518] Sat, 21 December 1985 07:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timothym is currently offline  timothym
Messages: 2
Registered: December 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: tekigm2.322
Posted: Sat Dec 21 07:27:39 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 04:39:33 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <409@aum.UUCP> <370@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: timothym@tekigm2 D Margeson.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson)
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 14


Hi,

For all you Amiga fans, here's something to flame about....

While all of you are busily discussing whether the Atari or Amiga is better,
I am here using my Compaq Deskpro, with lots of off the shelf software, just
watching.... Hope you all feel better.

-- 
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
tektronix!tekigm2!timothym                   @@   'Who said that?'  
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-465
Vancouver, WA. 98665
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279571 is a reply to message #279518] Sat, 21 December 1985 11:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mjg is currently offline  mjg
Messages: 68
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.973
Posted: Sat Dec 21 11:09:29 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 04:40:00 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <382@pedsgd.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1242 net.micro.atari:2073

 >  
 >  Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the
 >  display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors
 >  must still contend for access to memory.  YES, I/O can proceed independently,
 >  etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time.  This
 >  HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000.
 >  
 >  BTW, the ST also has an I/O co-processor, so presence vs. non-presence
 >  arguments in favor of the Amiga are inappropriate.
 >  
 >  					Bob Halloran


Yes BUT the bus speed of the Amiga is 14.4 MHz as opposed to the
ST which is 8MHz. The Amiga's 68000 runs at 7.2 MHz while the
Co-processors use the other 7.2 MHz.

Mike Gingell   ...decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279593 is a reply to message #279518] Sun, 22 December 1985 12:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
freed is currently offline  freed
Messages: 38
Registered: October 1985
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: aum.414
Posted: Sun Dec 22 12:29:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:21:11 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <382@pedsgd.UUCP> <425@amiga.amiga.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Aurora Systems Bunch
Lines: 35
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1264 net.micro.atari:2093

 >  In article <382@pedsgd.UUCP> bobh@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Halloran) writes:
 >> Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the
 >> display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors
 >> must still contend for access to memory.  YES, I/O can proceed independently,
 >> etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time.  This
 >> HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000.
 >  
 >  This is true.  But don't forget that the Amiga interleaves its access
 >  to the bus, using every available cycle, even the odd ones, whenever
 >  possible.  All of the DMA, including the display processors, use the
 >  odd cycles.  This enormously cuts down the contention for the bus.
 >  The result of this is that the 68000 and other co-processors get to run 
 >  at full speed regardless of display processing.  Only when the
 >  display gets elaborate -- 640 across (either interlaced or not) and
 >  4 bit-planes (16 colors onscreen) -- is there a significant lag
 >  in CPU performance.
 >      The same goes for the other DMA devices:  sprite, disk, and audio.
 >  With a simple display, a few sprites and some simple tones playing,
 >  you can fill a disk buffer and still have truly minimal interference
 >  with the performance of the 68000.

I would still like to know why the Amiga even with a 68020 and fast memory
still is *significantly* slower than the ST. Is their a hardware type out their
who can look at the memory cycles and see why the current claims of "no cpu
slowing due to graphics chips" seems to not be proved by the real world. If
I had one I would do it myself. If possible could a Amiga hardware engineer
explain this disparity? It seems very strange. P.S. I know that the clock is
slightly slower.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Erik James Freed
			   Aurora Systems
			   San Francisco, CA
			   {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279600 is a reply to message #279518] Mon, 23 December 1985 19:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
IEEE-CS is currently offline  IEEE-CS
Messages: 1
Registered: December 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: caip.832
Posted: Mon Dec 23 19:30:31 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:29:01 EST
Sender: daemon@caip.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 39

From: IEEE CS Students 

Erik Freed writes:

 >  I would still like to know why the Amiga even with a 68020 and fast memory
 >  still is significantly slower than the ST. Is their a hardware type out their
 >  who can look at the memory cycles and see why the current claims of "no cpu
 >  slowing due to graphics chips" seems to not be proved by the real world. If
 >  I had one I would do it myself. If possible could a Amiga hardware engineer
 >  explain this disparity? It seems very strange. P.S. I know that the clock is
 >  slightly slower.

Well, as they say, there are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks. As far as I can
tell, ALL of the benchmarks quoted on the net so far have been tests of the
COMPILERS, rather than the machines -- and, since I program mostly in assembly
language anyway, have little meaning as regards the code I'll produce.

Still, if anyone would care to settle the issue once and for all, let's see
if someone out in netland can get his/her hands on an ASSEMBLY-LANGUAGE 
version of these same benchmarks. Then, we would see a much better comparison
of the power of the two machines.

My educated guess is that the slightly slower clock speed of the Amiga, plus
the overhead introduced by its multitasking executive, will make it come in
at about 10% below the Atari in raw computational speed. On the other hand,
for high-speed graphics work (does anyone have a realistic benchmark for
this?), I would expect the Amiga to win by a factor of 10 or so.

In any case, the current comparisons are comparing apples to oranges, and
should be treated as such. Both machines are significantly faster than anything
that has hit the consumer market before, so -- in the final analysis -- does
it really matter, anyway?



Brett Glass


-------
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279612 is a reply to message #279518] Tue, 24 December 1985 15:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tim is currently offline  tim
Messages: 230
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Article-I.D.: ism780c.193
Posted: Tue Dec 24 15:19:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 23:30:23 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <382@pedsgd.UUCP> <425@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <414@aum.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Distribution: net
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 9
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1283 net.micro.atari:2102

In article <414@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes:
 > 
 > I would still like to know why the Amiga even with a 68020 and fast memory
 > still is *significantly* slower than the ST.

Because all the benchmarks are written in C.  It appears that the ST has
a better C compiler available then the Amiga.
-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279659 is a reply to message #279518] Fri, 27 December 1985 16:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ec150fcy is currently offline  ec150fcy
Messages: 6
Registered: November 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: sdcc13.402
Posted: Fri Dec 27 16:16:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Dec-85 20:13:18 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <409@aum.UUCP> <322@tekigm2.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 36
Xref: linus net.micro.amiga:5202 net.micro.atari:2068 net.micro.mac:3916
Summary: FLAME ON FOOLS

In article <322@tekigm2.UUCP>, timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
 >  
 >  Hi,
 >  
 >  For all you Amiga fans, here's something to flame about....
 >  
 >  While all of you are busily discussing whether the Atari or Amiga is better,
 >  I am here using my Compaq Deskpro, with lots of off the shelf software, just
 >  watching.... Hope you all feel better.
 >  
 >  -- 

FLAME ON****

Did the IBM PC have an abundance of software when it was
introduced???  NO!!!!  Did the MACINTOSH  have an 
abundance of software when it first came
out??? NOOO!!!! In fact, as I recall, the macintosh
didn't have an abundance (relative) of sotware for a whole
year.  A couple of friends of mine had nothing but
macpain (the drawing program) for a long time.

So give the Amiga a break and wait a year.  I am sure the
software base will grow exponentially (so sure in fact, that
I bought one)


I was over at my local computer store the other day, and they
say that the IBM PC'S and the MAC'S are the Amiga's
best friend.  They told me an amusing story about how
this one lady came in to buy a MAC and happened to see
the Amiga, with it's limited software base, running some graphics
program.  So what happened??? She bought the Amiga.  


Larry J. MacCaughey (No relation to the MacIntosh)
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279690 is a reply to message #279518] Wed, 01 January 1986 02:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kalpin is currently offline  kalpin
Messages: 1
Registered: January 1986
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: utecfc.52
Posted: Wed Jan  1 02:28:26 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 06:44:15 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <409@aum.UUCP> <322@tekigm2.UUCP> <402@sdcc13.UUCP>
Reply-To: kalpin@utecfc.UUCP (Jordan E Kalpin)
Distribution: net
Organization: Engineering Computing Facility, University of Toronto
Lines: 26
Summary: 

 > I was over at my local computer store the other day, and they
 > say that the IBM PC'S and the MAC'S are the Amiga's
 > best friend.  They told me an amusing story about how
 > this one lady came in to buy a MAC and happened to see
 > the Amiga, with it's limited software base, running some graphics
 > program.  So what happened??? She bought the Amiga.  
 > 
Now isn't this an intelligent little story...
The next time I go into a stereo store to buy a video recorder and see an 
RCA video disk player, I think I will buy the RCA unit.  After all, it has
much less of a selection of movies to worry about...I won't have to 
trouble my mind over overwhelming shelves of discontinued disks much less
worry about the inconvenience of recording movies.

I guess my New Year's eve has been ruined knowing that there is some lady out
there with $3000 worth of computer and all she can do is follow the bouncing
ball....
    
Do yourself a favour...bouncing balls are for kids....buy a Mac!!!

Send E-Mail bombs to:

Jordan Kalpin
Mechanical Engineering 
University of Toronto
kalpin@utecfc.UUCP
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279723 is a reply to message #279518] Thu, 02 January 1986 16:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
keith is currently offline  keith
Messages: 27
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.432
Posted: Thu Jan  2 16:49:48 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jan-86 07:19:03 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <409@aum.UUCP> <370@well.UUCP> <322@tekigm2.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 16

 >  
 >  I am here using my Compaq Deskpro, with lots of off the shelf software, just
			^	^
		I'm so terrirble sorry, (yawn).

	Hey, who told the 8-bit clowns where they could find us?  Next thing
you know we'll be told by those 4.55MHz guys that they have useful hardware.



  Here in,
  There out,
  Tell me when it's over.

                                            keith
                                            uw-beaver!ssc-vax!keith
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #279730 is a reply to message #279518] Fri, 03 January 1986 11:30 Go to previous message
sansom is currently offline  sansom
Messages: 14
Registered: December 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: trwrba.1761
Posted: Fri Jan  3 11:30:47 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 01:26:56 EST
Reply-To: sansom@trwrba.UUCP (Richard E. Sansom)
Distribution: net
Organization: TRW EDS, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 45
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1404 net.micro.atari:2170

In article <370@well.UUCP> perry@well.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) writes:
 > Some people wage religious  wars over the silliest things...

Yourself (and now, myself) included, obviously!

 > The debate over which machine  is better currently resurging yet again in
 > this newsgroup is damned silly. Those  poor folks who bought atari's have
 > to justify their brain damage and will  do  so  now matter what arguments
 > from the AMIGA side are tendered. Leave them alone!

Excuse me, I was unaware that buying a faster (yes, faster!!!  8 Mhz CPU,
16 Mhz memory - not just "fast memory", but the entire addressing range
of the computer - 32 Mhz graphics chip) machine for less than 1/2
the price of the _amiga_ qualified one for brain damage!

 > It is beneath the dignity of owners of the AMIGA P.C. to respond to atari
 > people's claim of machine supremacy...It's a waste of time:
 > 
 > 	you bought your - they bought theirs 
 > 	lets say one side (even theirs) is right - are you going to go out
 > 	and buy another machine lest ye be cast down by society? Neither are
 > 	they.
 > 
 > Just leave them alone.
 > 
 > (as my firend dave (@heurikon) says:
 > 
 > take a 520 st, put it in a dark closet and leave it alone. when it grows
 > up it'll be an amiga).

So which is it?  Leave_them_alone or sling_more_silly_insults?  Make up
your mind!!!  Maybe the above quote should be re-stated:

	take an _amiga peecee_ owner, put them in a dark closet.  when (if)
	they grow up they'll be more consistent in their arguments.

I will agree that it is a waste of time to continue this debate over
the two respective nets.  Why don't we move the discussion to
net.silly.insults where it belongs?

Richard E. Sansom
{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwrba!sansom
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Re: Lattice C Problem
Next Topic: Re: recent Amiga vs ST debate
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed May 18 21:45:48 EDT 2022

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01021 seconds