CompuServe Thread

Go(ne) Amigo??

26 messages in this thread
#16485From: Bob ChapmanMar 3, 1991 3:59 PM
I could not find a Go Amigo ad in the April 1991 issue of Amiga World. Have I missed something?? REC ——
#16525From: daniel wolfMar 4, 1991 6:33 AM
hope i'm not passing along only an ugly rumor. word reached me that go amigo is GONE. just a few days ago. sorry to see any amiga related business go bye-bye. hope its not true.
#16544From: Marlene Zenker/SYSOPMar 4, 1991 5:54 PM
Someone better check this before the rumor goes too far. They're still answering their phones, so they're still around in some capacity. Steve
#16714From: daniel wolfMar 6, 1991 1:26 AM
thanks – i hate to see anyone related to Amiga go. don't want to spread false rumors but i was curious about it. thanks again.
#16558From: George EllisMar 4, 1991 7:21 PM
Daniel: Sad to say, but it's true. I called them to place an order, and they told me that they had sold their inventory and accounts to Creative Computers. With the demise of Amiga+ magazine and Go Amigo, I hope that a trend is not starting. I've got practically no experience with MS-DOS machines, but what I have seen is not impressive. I communicate via modem with a friend of mine who owns a 286. We pass graphic files back and forth. While downloading the next file, I am formatting a disk, converting the previous GIF file to sham format, possibly reading a text file that he has sent, all simultaneously (albeit my A500 slows a bit). If he wants to format a disk OR view a file, he has to exit his term program. Not impressive at all. After talking to Go Amigo, they didn't paint a very rosy picture for the Amiga vendor business or for Commodore itself. I'm just worried that we might end up with an orphaned machine. The alternatives are not that great. I had planned to buy an A3000 when I get my tax refund. Now I don't know. -George
#16581From: Jeff SchweigerMar 4, 1991 10:40 PM
George – I don't know the business situation that caused Go Amiga to sell out to Creative Computers, but Commodore itself is showing a profit as of late and its stock is up 400% since August (from the $4 per share range to about $16 per share). I haven't seen any indication that the Amiga might be orphaned anytime soon (if ever). Jeff Schweiger
#16704From: Jim VentolaMar 6, 1991 12:37 AM
Course, Apple stock is way up too and NOT because of what the dollar is doing. Nonetheless, my local Amiga dealer doubled his floor space last summer and the place is a zoo on Saturdays. The Amiga is going to be around for some time.
#17190From: Christopher LapriseMar 12, 1991 8:10 PM
Indeed, it does almost seem as if people are swinging towards the Amiga just when money is getting scarce, because of a perceived greater price/performance value in the Amiga. It's hard to see that as purely co-incidence. What will really count is when those extra hardware sales translate into increased software sales and development.
#16715From: daniel wolfMar 6, 1991 1:29 AM
seems i may have had it right. steve pietrowicz (sysop on this forum) replied that i was wrong. ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE?? I agree with your points totally. I was a writer for Amiga + and have know the publisher and people there for many years. A great group, many of whom lost their jobs. AmigaWorld sent a letter out saying they've purchased Amiga+, though. I am curious about Go Amiga, though. Are they – or Aren't they?
#16739From: John PendergrassMar 6, 1991 1:12 PM
Well, I just CALLED Go-Amigo, and the patient is expired. According to the gent I spoke with, they are sold to Creative Computing, have already transfered about 90% of their stock and orders to Creative Computers, and they are not taking any more orders. At least they are nice enough to still answer the service line, and give you info on where/who to call. I dealt with them nearly anytime I needed to go mail order, and was never disappointed. Am sorry to see them go. –jp–seattle–
#17147From: daniel wolfMar 12, 1991 4:16 AM
sorry Go Amigo really is GOne, too. actually FPro does only take the lower left 268×268 square of data to make a .VIS file, so it seems (and i think this is tru from talking to Clint Woeltjen) that Vista is what actually distorts circles to ovals. Circles in FPro are Circles (i correct to 3 vertical vs. 4 horizontal in the y distance calculation, i.e. deltay in Fpro = .75 * deltaX = 75 * Width value shown). The original HAMandel didn't and gave ovals where there should have been circles. Very much look forward to have you visit, and to receive suggestions from you for 5.0 features. Taking center portion of FPro pic for .VIS file won't change the distortion, though. Have to do some other correction. When I render in Vista, it doesn't seem to make any big distortion, though – just when looking at the bird's eye view on their control screen. if you would be so kind, please send any nice things you've rendered w/ FPro and/or Vista with, if possible, permission to spread them around. a couple of other FPro afficionados have sent very nice stuff, pics and a super Julia Cascade anim file. With their permission, they will be uploaded to public accessability. thanks, JP – :-),DW
#17160From: John PendergrassMar 12, 1991 12:46 PM
Daniel, re circles in FractalPro vs. Vista. Here's where I see the problem: in FractalPro you draw a 320×400 screen. It takes about 20cm. to draw 268 pixels in lores. It takes about 10.5cm to draw 268 pixels in interlace. So each pixel actually represents an area ratio of about 2:1 of the set, right? When you take this over to Vista, the data is mapped onto a perfect 268×268 square grid, with a 1:1 ratio. So the data gets scrunched horizontally, and you end up with ovals in Vista. Vista cannot change anything, since it requires that its data already be in the correct aspect ratio in its square grid. Since the aspect ratio is (almost) exactly double, you could fix it in one of two ways: 1) skip every other pixel vertically when generating Vista data (but 2 times 268 = 536, and you only generate 400 rows, so you can't do that). 2) Oversample the horizontal pixels… get actual data from only the left 134 pixels, and interpolate a data point between each pair. You would generate your Vista data from the lower-left 134(horiz) X 268(vert) pixels. The interpolated horizontal points would give you a total of 268 horizontal points of data. Then you would have (very nearly) a circle in Vista. I think 🙂 All I meant by suggesting that you use the center of the pic rather than the lower-left is that I (and most others, I think) try to center the interesting part of the image in the view, and so generating a Vista file from this is much easier. I realize you can pan the image to get that part in the lower left, but its just one more step. (also, I wanted to generate a sequence of pics, AND to get .vis files for each as well. I had to do the sequence twice — once centered for pics; once for the .vis files) -I'll try to get some examples off to you soon. ttfn –jp–seattle–
#17228From: Clint H. WoeltjenMar 13, 1991 2:42 AM
John: Vista data is in a 1:1 aspect ratio in the 258 x 258 grid. It _is_ distorted on the topo map, but not in the final rendered drawing. Clint <VRLI>
#17238From: John PendergrassMar 13, 1991 11:17 AM
Clint, I am not trying to be a pain, but I've been rendering them since I got FractalPro, and they are distorted in both the topo map, and in the render. Unless my eyes have been going oval on me lately 🙂 I don't see how Vista could 'correct' the aspect ratio from topo to rendering…. using MSH as an example, it is in correct ratio on the topo map, right? It is in correct ratio in the rendering right? So there is no ratio 'conversion' taking place. All I was saying was that the Mandelbrot data on the topo map was at a 2:1 ratio, plotted onto a 1:1 ratio grid. This is not anyone's fault; it is a natural consequence of mapping 2:1 data onto a 1:1 grid. I was just trying to suggest one possible solution. [he asked for suggestions after all 🙂 ] –jp–seattle–
#17470From: Clint H. WoeltjenMar 15, 1991 9:27 PM
John: The topo appearance is _not_ correct. A Vista DEM is 258 points x 258 points, and _each_ point is 30 meters from the next, both in the horizontal and vertical. This _should_ produce a perfectly square topo, but obviously it doesn't. The rendering however is based on equally spaced points and the final 3-d image does come out correct. The Mapping is not 2:1 but more like the aspect ratio of the monitor, which is about 5:2, or 5:4 for Vista. If you mapped something to look like a perfect circle on the topo map, it would _not_ render as a perfect circle, as its depth would be only 80% of its width. Clint <VRLI>
#17489From: John PendergrassMar 15, 1991 11:38 PM
Well, cut a section of the set with a circular set area in it out of FractalPro. Then do a bird's eye view of it in Vista; any resolution. If it ain't oval I'm gonna have to sell my monitor! I'm *not* trying to rag any product 🙂 Both are wonderful. Was just bringing up what (I thought) was a (*real*) minor problem. 'enuf said. Speaking of Venus, are you working on some of that wonderful data JPL used to render that scrumptious animation? –jp–seattle–
#17227From: Clint H. WoeltjenMar 13, 1991 2:42 AM
Dan: The topo map in Vista and VPro displays as 129 x 129 and 129 x 258 respectively, which does cause significant distortion. The actual rendered image is true to correct dimansions, and is not distorted. The topo map was distorted intentionally to be an accurate representation of the data. You might say it was distorted to preserve clarity. <grin> Clint <VRLI>
#16812From: Marlene Zenker/SYSOPMar 7, 1991 5:25 PM
Actually, what I said was that they're answering the phones and that someone should check on what's really going on. Steve
#16881From: John PendergrassMar 8, 1991 1:22 PM
Steve, don't know if you saw me earlier post, but I called them, and yes, they are out-of-business. Have sold to Creative. Unfilled orders have already been transferred to Creative, according the person I spoke with. –jp–seattle–
#16953From: Marlene Zenker/SYSOPMar 9, 1991 8:28 AM
Thanks for the info. Steve
#17148From: daniel wolfMar 12, 1991 4:18 AM
looks like Go Amigo turned out to take an unfortunately ironic literal interpretation of their name. i like more competition, not less.
#16767From: Joe KuzmaMar 6, 1991 8:51 PM
George, I don't think this has anything to do with a trend & the Amiga, but more to the shotty economy we are having. Sales everywhere have dropped, and hard times are still to come.
#17189From: Christopher LapriseMar 12, 1991 8:10 PM
I know what you mean, precisely. It is hard to think about investing in another machine when none compare to what you have now… All because of marketing and black computer-politics.
#17258From: George EllisMar 13, 1991 7:45 PM
Christopher: Now that I've got the ATonce up and running, I can see for myself what an antiquated and clunky dos MSDOS is. I'm sure that more advanced machines with their Windows environments and Mega-meg memory banks are a different cup of tea, but look what we can do with the lowest end Amigas. I often wonder what would have happened if the Amiga was developed by IBM way back when. I'll just bet that the Amiga (marketed by IBM and named the same) would have been the power machine and if Commodore had introduced MSDOS machines instead of Amigas, most of us would never have heard of MSDOS. Did you understand that? It all seems to be a matter of marketing and timing. As long as the Amiga platform continues to grow, and software continues to improve, I won't change. My main reason for buying the ATONCE was to learn MSDOS. Unfortunately, it is THE business machine. George – via Whap!
#16576From: Bob ChapmanMar 4, 1991 10:20 PM
INDEED! I have been concerned ever since I noticed that they had abruptly gone to one page in the March Amiga World. I had found them to be a reliable source several times (in the past) and would hate to see them gone. REC ——
#16716From: daniel wolfMar 6, 1991 1:30 AM
i didn't do much business with them but met the Go Amiga folks at the Santa Clara AmiExpo and they were a friendly bunch and seemed dedicated to Amiga – makes 'em friends in my book.