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

Home » Archive » net.micro.atari » 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 #279961] 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:
[color=blue]>  It would be much more helpful if you stated WHY you believe that the[/color]
[color=blue]>  AMIGA is better than the ST. Since I may buy a new computer soon, I[/color]
[color=blue]>  would like to hear real information about the two machines. So far, the[/color]
[color=blue]>  main differences appear to be:[/color]
[color=blue]>  [/color]
[color=blue]>  (a) the ST is half the price of the AMIGA.[/color]

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

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

    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.

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

    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)

[color=blue]>  (d) the AMIGA is said to be more expandable than the ST.[/color]

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

[color=blue]>  (e) the AMIGA has a multitasking operating system. Definitely a big plus,[/color]
[color=blue]>      but as soon as OS9 is available for either machine, this does not[/color]
[color=blue]>      matter anymore.[/color]
 
    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 #279979 is a reply to message #279961] 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 #279981 is a reply to message #279961] 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:
[color=blue]> In article <840@h-sc1.UUCP>, breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes:[/color]
[color=teal]>>  It would be much more helpful if you stated WHY you believe that the[/color]
[color=teal]>>  AMIGA is better than the ST. Since I may buy a new computer soon, I[/color]
[color=teal]>>  would like to hear real information about the two machines. So far, the[/color]
[color=teal]>>  main differences appear to be:[/color]
[color=teal]>>  [/color]
[color=teal]>>  (b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the[/color]
[color=teal]>>      ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed.[/color]
[color=blue]> [/color]
[color=blue]>     Absolutely false.  The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors[/color]
[color=blue]>     which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the[/color]
[color=blue]>     CPU were responsible for display updates.  Note that the coprocessors[/color]
[color=blue]>     also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well.[/color]

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 #279996 is a reply to message #279961] 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 #279998 is a reply to message #279961] 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:
[color=blue]> -- are there MacWrite type word processors available for either machine?[/color]
(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.
[color=blue]>    How easy are they to adapt to a specific printer?[/color]
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.)

[color=blue]> -- what terminal emulators are available for the two machines? Are[/color]
[color=blue]>    they reliable? What protocols do they support for file transfer?[/color]
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.
[color=blue]> -- what graphics design programs (in the style of MacDraw) are available[/color]
[color=blue]>    for either machine? How usable are they?[/color]
	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 #280006 is a reply to message #279961] 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:
[color=blue]> Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the[/color]
[color=blue]> display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors[/color]
[color=blue]> must still contend for access to memory.  YES, I/O can proceed independently,[/color]
[color=blue]> etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time.  This[/color]
[color=blue]> HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000.[/color]

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 #280009 is a reply to message #279961] Sat, 21 December 1985 04:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
knnngt is currently offline  knnngt
Messages: 19
Registered: December 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: ukma.2425
Posted: Sat Dec 21 04:27:04 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 00:18:20 EST
Reply-To: knnngt@ukma.UUCP (Alan Kennington)
Distribution: net.micro.atari
Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 50
Keywords: ST sttalk VT52
Summary: comments on ST

+++++++Line eaters do not exist any more, do they?++++++++

	Just a few comments about the ST.
	In answer to question about power supply compatibility with Europe,
the story Atari people told me is that since the disk drive and computer
run on DC power supplies, there is no problem. You just buy the European
power supply (ie device for converting AC to DC) in Europe. I was told they 
might have a few European power supplies lying around in the US, and that
a dealer could get hold of them, probably. The SM124 runs at 70 Hz, a fact
that is well documented in magazines etc. It would actually be a good idea
to have some sort of listing of all the articles on the ST written in magazines.
	I for one would like to know exactly which issue of BYTE had the
technical article on the ST. A lot of questions asked here are answered in the
articles I read before buying an ST. Now the monitor actually plugs directly
into the wall. So I am not quite so clear as to how to adapt the monitor to
50 Hz Power. But at least the sync is not derived from the 60 Hz waveform,
which is cause for some optimism in this regard.
	The delightful screen quality that results from a combination of
70 Hz scanning + non-reflective screen + etc. etc. is one of the pleasures of
the ST. Does anyone know how to spread the dots over the full screen???
	On the subject of ST/Amiga comparisons, it certainly is noce to
get new information, especially when one is trying to make a decision on
a purchase, but questions like which one has the best screen, software etc.
are unanswerable. Questions about comparisons should be very specific, and
the questioner should invest in copies of the dozen or so articles that have
appeared lately. 
	Incidentally, I'm using my ST at the moment in VT52 Emulation mode
over a phone line to a VAX to write this note. The VT52 Em does 99% of things
just as the vi editor on UNIX wants it to. (Sometimes it makes an error
counting lines and positions the cursor on the screen one line above where
it is in the file.) But I must say that the copy of STTALK I have makes a
complete and utter mess of the very same commands from vi. 
	STTALK is perfect at communicating files via XMODEM, and the CAPTURE
mode also works perfectly. But instructions from vi just push the cursor to the
right of the screen, from which it never escapes. Hence I have had to leave
STTALK for the VT52 emulator to write this note.
	The VT52 Emulator has just made the error I mentioned. I escaped
from insert mode to replace two erroneous characters. And when I went back to
inserting, the cursor appeared one line above where it was (hopefully) in the
file. I'll have to check if this is truly so.
	Has anybody else found these problems, and if so, do you know the
solution(s)? 
	Another problem is line noise at 1200 baud. Every 15 characters or
so at 1200 baud, the VAX seems to receive a ^C from me. (With roughly
Poisson distribution of arrival.) So I suffer with 300 baud. This makes
reading superfluous info/questions painful.
	The version of STTALK I use is V1.0. I also have version 0.95. Has
a version later than 1.0 yet appeared?
				So long,
					Alan Kennington.
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #280014 is a reply to message #279961] Sun, 22 December 1985 01:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
knnngt is currently offline  knnngt
Messages: 19
Registered: December 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: ukma.2430
Posted: Sun Dec 22 01:55:53 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 00:21:17 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP> <382@pedsgd.UUCP> <425@amiga.amiga.UUCP>
Reply-To: knnngt@ukma.UUCP (Alan Kennington)
Distribution: net
Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 13

&&&&&&&&&&&&&& le mangeur des lignes?   il n'existe plus! &&&&&&&&&&&

	The sequence of arguments about relative use of the bus by ST and
Amiga has previously appeared at least once, and I think perhaps twice.
Last time we were told about how, if necessary, the other chips can steal
time when they're in a tight spot. For those Atari users who have only
short-term memory, perhaps someone at Amiga should tell us all again about
these fascinating phenomena which occur in their wondrous machine.
	Actually I have myself made use of such discussions to settle on
the ST. But I think discussion should go around in a circle only twice a
month at most, rather than the present 4 times.
				Felices Pascuas,
					Alan Kennington.
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #280017 is a reply to message #279961] Sat, 21 December 1985 22:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bammi is currently offline  bammi
Messages: 27
Registered: January 1986
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.1358
Posted: Sat Dec 21 22:14:08 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 04:29:56 EST
References: <2425@ukma.UUCP>
Distribution: net.micro.atari
Organization: CWRU Dept. Computer Eng., Cleveland, OH
Lines: 58

.......
[color=blue]>  	Incidentally, I'm using my ST at the moment in VT52 Emulation mode[/color]
[color=blue]>  over a phone line to a VAX to write this note. The VT52 Em does 99% of things[/color]
[color=blue]>  just as the vi editor on UNIX wants it to. (Sometimes it makes an error[/color]
[color=blue]>  counting lines and positions the cursor on the screen one line above where[/color]
[color=blue]>  it is in the file.) But I must say that the copy of STTALK I have makes a[/color]
[color=blue]>  complete and utter mess of the very same commands from vi. [/color]
[color=blue]>  	STTALK is perfect at communicating files via XMODEM, and the CAPTURE[/color]
[color=blue]>  mode also works perfectly. But instructions from vi just push the cursor to the[/color]
[color=blue]>  right of the screen, from which it never escapes. Hence I have had to leave[/color]
[color=blue]>  STTALK for the VT52 emulator to write this note.[/color]
[color=blue]>  	The VT52 Emulator has just made the error I mentioned. I escaped[/color]
[color=blue]>  from insert mode to replace two erroneous characters. And when I went back to[/color]
[color=blue]>  inserting, the cursor appeared one line above where it was (hopefully) in the[/color]
[color=blue]>  file. I'll have to check if this is truly so.[/color]
[color=blue]>  	Has anybody else found these problems, and if so, do you know the[/color]
[color=blue]>  solution(s)? [/color]
[color=blue]>  	Another problem is line noise at 1200 baud. Every 15 characters or[/color]
[color=blue]>  so at 1200 baud, the VAX seems to receive a ^C from me. (With roughly[/color]
[color=blue]>  Poisson distribution of arrival.) So I suffer with 300 baud. This makes[/color]
[color=blue]>  reading superfluous info/questions painful.[/color]
[color=blue]>  	The version of STTALK I use is V1.0. I also have version 0.95. Has[/color]
[color=blue]>  a version later than 1.0 yet appeared?[/color]
[color=blue]>  				So long,[/color]
[color=blue]>  					Alan Kennington.[/color]

I agree that the STTALK is totally useless as terminal emulator. But
you can still try, remembering that sttalk give you a 21 line vt52
instead of the usual 25. So the TERMCAP entry has to be appro.
adjusted (li#21).
	I have not encountered the problem with the cursor jumping
to the wrong line. I normally use Gnuemacs, not Vi, but I don't
think that should matter. It sounds like a character or so is getting
dropped. So you may try fine tuning the padding in your TERMCAP entry.
I fine tuned my entry so that I get no Xon/Xoff when I hit a ^L in the
editor to refresh a screen full (Xon/offs play havoc with emacs). I
usually use the St uver a 2400 Baud modem with a simple terminal
emulator that uses Xbios calls to do output, so the Bios takes care
of the Vt52 emulation. I also use the St over a 9600 Baud line, with
no problem (ie. after tuning my TERMCAP entry). I have also used
the emulator in the 50 Line mode after adjusting the TERMCAP entry
(li#50) with no problems.
	V1.1 id Sttalk is avail. by sending your origonal disk and $2
to them . I received mine a couple of days back. It still has the
brain  damaged bars, but a lot if the bugs have been cleared, added
a coouple of feature, like remembering Baud rates with the Dial
Entries, Dial prefixes, Entry A's Baud Rate is the Baud rate it comes
up in, etc. etc.




-- 
					Jwahar R. Bammi
			       Usenet:  .....!decvax!cwruecmp!bammi
			        CSnet:  bammi@case
				 Arpa:  bammi%case@csnet-relay
			   CompuServe:  71515,155
Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA [message #280018 is a reply to message #279961] 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

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


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 #280039 is a reply to message #279961] 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

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

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 #280049 is a reply to message #279961] 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:
[color=blue]> [/color]
[color=blue]> I would still like to know why the Amiga even with a 68020 and fast memory[/color]
[color=blue]> still is *significantly* slower than the ST.[/color]

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 #280071 is a reply to message #279961] 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:
[color=blue]>  [/color]
[color=blue]>  Hi,[/color]
[color=blue]>  [/color]
[color=blue]>  For all you Amiga fans, here's something to flame about....[/color]
[color=blue]>  [/color]
[color=blue]>  While all of you are busily discussing whether the Atari or Amiga is better,[/color]
[color=blue]>  I am here using my Compaq Deskpro, with lots of off the shelf software, just[/color]
[color=blue]>  watching.... Hope you all feel better.[/color]
[color=blue]>  [/color]
[color=blue]>  -- [/color]

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 #280116 is a reply to message #279961] 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:
[color=blue]> Some people wage religious  wars over the silliest things...[/color]

Yourself (and now, myself) included, obviously!

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

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!

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

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: Commodore and ST debate
Next Topic: Re: recent Amiga vs ST debate
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Tue May 24 23:47:31 EDT 2022

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01885 seconds