#Commodore Liquidation
60 messages in this thread
I use QQUOTE here to check closing prices of stocks/companies in which I'm
interested.
News item today:
"RTf 04/29 1718 COMMODORE INTERNATIONAL <CBU.N> SAYS TO LIQUIDATE
REUTER"
No other details — but this is an official public news release.
It's the end.
–apl
Yes, I saw that too.
I'm not sure exactly what "liquidation" means in US terms, but if it's the same
as the UK that's bad news … they basically have to sell all their assets to
pay off their creditors/debts. Anything they have left over they can presumably
keep.
It is also only Commodore International … how does that affect the various
segments of the Commodore empire I wonder.
Mike (from the UK)
Gould has been lending money to Commodore from another company of his. If his
loan is secured, a liquidation could be as much as his interest as any other
creditor. He may have been able to position himself such that he stands a
better chance of recovery than other creditors. Since he seems to have lacked a
clue all along, perhaps welcomes the barabrians at the gate….Outsiders
turning the company around may be more than he can bear [D
From what I have been told by Commodore UK is that the US division of Commodore
went into liquidation today. This means that Commodore US will no longer
exist. Probably for the best, since I know Commodore UK is getting tired of
footing the bill for the US division.
Jim,
Commodore International Limited went into Chapter 7 today … that means there
is no Commodore UK either.
Jim,
This is inaccurate. Please read the Reuters report. The liquidation is of
Commodore Electronics Ltd. with Commodore International as the next step
(which CIL mgmt has already announced).
It is no longer an issue of CBM US vs CBM UK, etc. CBM UK and the other
"nationals" were simply sales arms of CIL/CEL. The liquidation of CIL/CEL
means the liquidation of all corporate assets including CBM UK, CBM GER, etc.
It also includes the factory in the Philipines and basically any other asset at
all related to C=, period.
John
Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear it's the worst news — it's the end of
Commodore worldwide, not just the U.S., which to me means the end of the Amiga.
Sales of assets/technology may happen, but I can only see them used with or
incorporated into other systems or future products — none of which are likely
to have any capability, or any relationship to, the Amiga.
Too bad. I had a C64 around 1981, got an Amiga 1000 with 256K, ADOS 1.0 (yes,
one-point-zero) in September 1985, and still play with my seven-year-old Amiga
2000. But it's been clear for well over a year that there was only a remote
chance for its future.
I really like the slickly-multitasking and much more efficient Workbench 2.1 on
my A2000, compared to the kludgey Windows 3.1 on the 486 in-office and
subnotebook machines I also have. But the ADOS/Workbench system, and the very
specialized narrow-market video applications, are the ONLY things that the
Amiga has really had for a long,long time. Windows (and Mac) applications —
like the latest Word For Windows, Excel, Quatro-Pro, etc. etc. etc. are and
have been so far beyond what the poor Amiga has ever offered that it was clear
that it was at its end.
It's a shame, and I'm going to miss it.
–apl
I figure, assuming the worst, I'll stay loyal to my Amy until the
PC/MAC/PPC world comes up with something equivilent to what my Amiga does
now. It may be soon, it may not.
However, I have yet to hear of any other platforms with true, descent,
multitasking. And graphics are to dependant on buying just the right
card.
Chris – Fast and Low on my '020!
Clap On! <clap clap> Clap Off! <clap cla{%& NO CARRIER
> However, I have yet to hear of any other platforms with true,
> descent, multitasking.
There is _plenty_ of true, decent, multitasking OS's out there.
OS/2 and NT quickly come to mind. OS/2 is clean, and pretty darned fast.
There are also several very cheap and/or free Unix variations for other home
machines out there.
—– Andrew
Most of my PeeCee buds tell me that OS/2 is not neat, or clean, and while
it's "windows" version is nice, it suffers many more trips to the "Intel
Guru" than what an Amy does.
And 16 meg (NT) to accomplish what my Amiga does in 512k does not
constitute "clean" to me. I realize there are differences to justify a
size difference between the OS's, but not 15.5 megs worth of it. Whatever
happened to "efficient code", rather than "Oh, if you use a DX/2 66 you'll
never notice I wrote it cludgy, crappy, and bulky!"
<Sigh>
On a side, should someone pick up the technology, this could feasibly be a
second chance for the system. An Intel/PowerPC split it likely, and the
window for a third party to jump in and grab marketshares does exist.
With the Amiga already winning Emmy's and producing graphics for
prime-time, it stand to pull out… if someone with brains picks it up.
I just hope this week holds good news…
Chris – Fast and Low on my '020!
Is it significant that my spell checker doesn't know "Quit"?
> And 16 meg (NT) to accomplish what my Amiga does in 512k does not
> constitute "clean" to me. I realize there are differences to justify
> a size difference between the OS's, but not 15.5 megs worth of it.
I suspect you fail to understand what people are doing with these boxes. The
vertical and mainstream applications that the business world run, take up a lot
of space. Sure there is a lot of bloat, but people are asking a lot out of
their software for business that home owners don't think about. Besides,
memory is cheap!
Even the Amiga see's this when people do 3D stuff, having 16M or 32M Amigas in
not uncommon.
It's just OS/2 is used more in business while most Amigas are home machines.
Before the flames start, please note I said most, not all!
> On a side, should someone pick up the technology, this could
> feasibly be a second chance for the system. An Intel/PowerPC
> split it likely, and the window for a third party to jump in
> and grab marketshares does exist.
The odds are as close to zero as we can calculate. Who has the 100's of
millions it would take? Who has that much money and is foolish enough to blow
it on such a long shot?
> With the Amiga already winning Emmy's and producing graphics for
> prime-time, it stand to pull out… if someone with brains picks
> it up.
People don't buy a computer because their favorite TV show was made with it.
The _vast_ majority of people buy them for three basic reasons…
1) A friend they trust recommends one.
2) They have them at work or school.
3) They go to a computer store and ask a stupic clerk what they need.
The only likely Amiga connection there is item one.
The reason Amiga can't jump in and gain market share is simple economics. If I
had the $200 million it would take to sell the Amiga correctly, I could just as
easily make cheap PC clones and sell them. I would have lower costs and be
assured of a higher payoff.
The Amiga _deserves_ to succeed, but Commodre droped the ball five years ago,
and it would have been almost impossible to turn around since.
—— Andrew
Andrew – I think you are wrong – the potential is there for Amiga to make a
huge comeback. From what I understand of this new EMPLANT card, the Amiga could
be marketed with full IBM 486 AND Mac compatibility, and run most Mac apps
faster than the Macs themselves. People may not understand the Amiga, but this
angle alone is simple economics most WILL understand – Why buy one computer
when you can have two? As an added bonus, it happens that this is on an Amiga
platform. As long the average PC or Mac user can access the programs they are
familiar with without a problem, AND run some of them faster, why wouldn't
Amiga be a success? Your 3 reasons are the right requirements for most
purchases, but a little word of mouth advertising about Amiga's compatibility
would make these GOOD reasons to buy an Amiga – especially if you DO normally
use a PC and a customer hands you work on a MAC-formatted floppy…
Do you know Garry the reason why cbm is in the position it is in?
because they didn't hire us as their advertisig agents. Of course
I would have to be paid more than you, it's only fair.
Ach, what's money when you have fun with your job?
Garry,
sorry, but by the time you got back into the market, it would be too
late. The PowerPC Macs can emulate the Intel family just as easily as
they can the Motorola family, and they have a huge advertising budget.
So, if you did try to reenter the market on that point, they'd blow you
away so fast you wouldn't see the bullet.
The Four Seasons of Southern California:
Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Riot.
Brian,
sorry but no one knows the future! after seeing what the saturn could
do I'd say no one has this market sewed up tight, probably never will.
As soon as someone thinks they have the cutting edge someone will come
out with something better and cheaper. Which leaves people like you
jumping here and there spending your money. I'll stick with the amiga
who's to say that all these new and future systems couldn't be emulated
on an Amiga. When the A2000 came out did you think that it could emulate
a system that wouldn't be invented until 8 years later. I don't care
what bullet you use if it aint silver forget it.
Charles,
actually, I did. Emulation is nothing new under the sun. The first
computer I had my eye on to replace my TRS-80, was the Chameleon, which
was supposed to emulate everything of its time and would allow for future
emulation using expansion personality modules. Sound familiar?
Then the A1000 was reviewed in Byte, and I had my new machine.
The Four Seasons of Southern California:
Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Riot.
Ahhh -errr excuse me. Saturn is GM – one of if not the largest
corporation in the world. It was a cooperative effort with the United
Auto Workers and Teamsters, the largest and most powerful unions in the
world. And Saturn had not as of '93 turned a profit. The layoffs in the
other divisions kept them afloat, essentially. And there is nothing
"state of the art" in the saturn. MaPherson struts have been around for
ages as has power steering, disc brakes and plastic bodies ('Vettes have
had them for years). You actually get more modern technolgy in the Geo
Prizm (actually a Toyota Corolla built at the Sumi Factory near Oakland,
CA, a joint venture between GM and Toyota.) The thing that sets Saturn
appart is the emphasis on people in the factory (workers) and the buyers
as people. GM expects to Saturn to eventually becpome profitable and the
experiment is supposed to show that empowering employees to act with
initiative at all levels and treating customers like people first and
money spouts second can produce higher quality product that will have a
reasonable market share.
wmc – via Autopilot!
Soooo…. PowerPC emulation for the Amiga?
Garry,
I don't think so. That would be like windows on a 8 MHz 286.
The Four Seasons of Southern California:
Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Riot.
> From what I understand of this new EMPLANT card, the Amiga could be
> marketed with full IBM 486 AND Mac compatibility, and run most Mac
> apps faster than the Macs themselves.
Who would buy a new, unknown brand computer and buy an EMPLANT and buy Mac ROMS
to run 68K Mac code? For _less_ money, you could buy a PowerMac. Remember we
are talking about _new_ computer buyers.
( Everybody does _buy_ the Mac ROMS leagl like, right? <grin> )
Currently a PowerMac 6100 _with_ monitor can be bought for $250 less than an
A4000 without monitor. The PowerPC chip is also _lots_ faster than the 68K
series. The PowerPC chip is also getting faster at a much quicker rate than
the 68K every will. Bet your last dollar on that.
By the fall, Apple is hinting at PowerPC based Macs for near $1,000. That's
cutting edge RISC for less than a good 486 machine.
Just as the PC world is moving to Pentium and the Mac world is moving to
PowerPC you will never get new buyers to spring for a machine they have never
heard of that won't run the latest hotest stuff.
The 68060 is looking slower and slower everyday. Moto can't even ship 66Mhz
versions until _late_ this year. They will be shipping 100Mhz 604 PowerPC
chips before that. The 604 at 100Mhz is almost TRIPLE the speed of a 66Mhz
68060. (RISC pays off in spades!)
In the end, nobody has the hundreds of millions it would take. And there is no
way to get several hundred people to pool enough to do it. If it were that
easy, it would happen. I bet a buck it don't.
I hope there is a way the Amiga can continue to be built, but I don't see it
becoming a runaway hit.
—– Andrew
Andrew –
> Just as the PC world is moving to Pentium and the Mac world is moving
> to PowerPC you will never get new buyers to spring for a machine they
> have never heard of that won't run the latest hotest stuff.
Would there be a market for a machine that runs all your comfortable Amiga
software (Pagestream 3, Toast, …) AND PowerMac software (and of course
regular Mac software) AND OS/2 and Chicago?
I'm thinking that if the PowerPC cpu series can run Mac operating system,
it can be made to run AmigaDos. I visualize Jim Drew's developer
consortium, after buying the right to the Amiga, developing it in native
mode, but also porting it to the PowerPC cpu.
I was going to say that the next generation Emplant would run Mac and Dos
software, but the PowerPC chip shouldn't need an Emplant to do that.
. . . . JimDoc, on AutoPilot
JimDoc,
that's something I'd buy. I'll need a new machine next year, and if it
were out there, I'd pay for it.
The Four Seasons of Southern California:
Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Riot.
I agree that there _was_ a lot of opportunity for the Amiga … high-speed '486
and Mac "cloning" (perhaps we should use "cloning" rather than "emulating", it
works better in markat-land), for instance, could have done a great deal for
the Amiga's position in the marketplace.
The problem is that it's too late; it should have been with use at least a year
ago.
Commodore has been fighting the market rather badly over the years, and while
the Amiga might well have a lot to offer and, unfettered by the old management,
has a chance to do very well indeed, I can't see it succeeding too well if it
now also has to fight a market that sees a company that has gone into
liquidation and, possibly a new company with an unproven track record.
The market is fickle enough about non-PC machines without throwing this
financial uncertainty into the race.
I'm not trying to be pessimistic, just as realistic as I can … and I don't
think 486/Mac support will sell the Amiga in the future except in small
quantites.
Howdy folks,
I'll just be a buttinsky and jump in here for a tick. I use both Windows
(486dx/2-66) and a PowerMac 7100. Until Insignia gets off its <XXX> and gets
its windows emulator beyond 286 capability emulation, I will continue to use
two machines. I looked at the Amiga 4000. Frankly, I was impressed – more
than with OS/2, NT or a MAC. However, I have a few friends who got burned on
the Amiga 1000 when it was unceremoniously dropped by Commodore. So I was a
little concerned. When I looked at WordPerfect (so I could communicate outside
the club), I discovered that it was an OLD version. Getting software, at least
here in the Norfolk, VA area, was going to be confined to going to a couple of
hole-in-the-wall specialty shoppes. Sooooo, I got the PowerMac.
Again, the Amiga was the neatest machine. I love the idea of all the
coprocessors to speed things up (they do an incredible job!) I just didn't see
much happening with it. Sorry fellas…. GREAT machine – LOUSY, LOUSY
marketing.
John
I didn't think ANYBODY sold Amiga stuff in Norfolk. Hole-in-the-wall or
otherwise.
-Vree in VA
Yep! Well, C= tried everything to kill it, but due to the dedication of it
users, they couldn't do it. So they decided to go out of business instead!
(Smarmy, I know, but I feel less guilt pumping bullets into a corpse…)
wmc – via Autopilot!
Ohhh you doomsayer, may your toungue grow black an furry!!! out with you
dammed spotty!! Never shall realism taint these hallowed fora!!!!
(just thought I save other's the task and share some of the smoke and fire
I got for similare views…. :^}
wmc – via Autopilot!
486 is near mid life, the Mac 68xxxx at end life. Most people with x86
(x<4) will likely not spend bucks on anythig short of a pentium. The mac
people are not going to spend on anything short of a Power PC or a quadra
(that is board-level upgradable to PPC). And most people would be scared
away by the "no longer produced/rerplaceable Power supply" the emplant
requires.
Emplant is a good idea, too late and a generation behind. It is the
technology that was a natural outgrowth of the old A1000 side-car
thinking, a good concept that C= never fully appreciated, developed fully,
or marketed well. UU is unfortunately going to be stuck with the same
market it has awlays catered to with emplant – those with "other"
platforms at work or home who want some cross-machine compatibilityin a
single box. And I doubt UU has several hundred mill laying about to
reopent the Commodore assembly lines.
wmc – via Autopilot!
>> And 16 meg (NT) to accomplish what my Amiga does in 512k does not
>> constitute "clean" to me. I realize there are differences to justify
>> a size difference between the OS's, but not 15.5 megs worth of it.
>I suspect you fail to understand what people are doing with these boxes.
>The vertical and mainstream applications that the business world run,
>take up a lot of space. Sure there is a lot of bloat, but people are
>asking a lot out of their software for business that home owners don't
>think about. Besides, memory is cheap!
You miss the point Andrew. When NT boots up it needs of minimum of
something like 8 -12 Meg of RAM (the initial reports said 16 Meg but I
think this has been revised down) just for the OS. This is not including
any application software. Even with all the stuff NT is "supposed" to do,
I consider this excessive.
._ _ o _ |_ _. _ | _ _ |_ _ _. INTERNET: mshea@math.arizona.edu
| | ||(_ | |(_|(/_| (/_o _> | |(/_(_| COMPUSERVE: 76665,3360
NT grabs most of the available ram though for paging space and releases it
back to apps as they need them.
Ian
Ian,
actually, PC World has a very nice piece this month on the memory
requirements for the various OS'es and while what you say is accurate,
it's not quite true. 12 MB is just what you need to get NT operable. To
use it with an app requires 16 MB, and it is slow as a hog lounging in the
mud with that amount of memory. To get operable speed out of it requires
32 MB, with higher speeds resulting from higher memory sizes.
By comparison, OS/2 seems to operate tolerably (i.e. it is at it's
"sweet spot") with 8 MB of memory, although more is needed for video or
graphics work.
The Four Seasons of Southern California:
Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Riot.
Andrew,
I think that your reply to Chris lost the plot. I agree with all you said
but the topic was the OS and 16meg HD space and 8meg RAM doesn't
constitute clean and decent. Sure 16M or 32M Amigas are not uncommon but
the memory is for the productivity not the OS and sure memory is cheap but
that cheap that I want to buy another 6 meg to run the OS efficiently.
People usually forget the user in these things. I haven't got the
whistles in my Amiga WP but my clones don't have the bells. My Amiga
system is half the price, WYSIWYG and three times as fast. My clone
system has some real fancy stuff I use occasionally [I'm referring to a
2meg A1200 and a 4meg 386DX and I _know_ 486s a real cheap but still not
cheap as 386s :-]
regards, Lu on AutoPilot downunder
It's all apples and oranges, unfortunately. Yes, Amiga had preemptive
multitasking in 512K. But even Windows 2.x was marginally retargetable between
different display cards, and even today's AmigaDOS/Intuition doesn't have all
the networking, display, inter-app communications, remote access, etc. that
Windows / WinNT has. People aren't running a Toaster or cool audio digitizing
software in 512K. They're running eight to sixteen megs.
>> People aren't running a Toaster or cool audio digitizing software in
>> 512K. They're running eight to sixteen megs.
And they're drumming their fingers on the table top waiting for the CG page to
render.
Stephen
tsk, tsk, tsk. There's more of that realist talk. Better watch it or the
Amiga Thought Police will be at your door tonight… :^}
wmc – via Autopilot!
Plus, as I recall, NT is multi-user out of the box, and each of the tasks
in the multi-tasking environment runs in protected space. Theoretically
no rebooting #80000003 type messages… If ADos provided the wame
services, it would no longer be 512K.
wmc – via Autopilot!
I don't think it's considered multi-user. I can't even find a solid 'rlogin'
daemon that would let me type DOS commands in a window on the Amiga, for
example. But the reboot problem is gone… no Windows GPFs. I've never had
WinNT hang completely; yet many Windows users I know have that problem at least
once a day. Sounds like the old days of Amiga…
Andrew,
OS/2 fails miserably at multitasking timing intensive applications, as does
Windows. Windows can handle simple MIDI apps but chokes when it comes to MIDI
combined with hard disk audio recording. OS/2 timing chokes on MIDI alone.
When you start taxing the system with hardware I/O these "true" multitasking
systems don't hold up very well.
Howard
– via Whap!
> OS/2 fails miserably at multitasking timing intensive applications,
> as does Windows
I've had people I trust tell me otherwise. What class machine are you refering
to? What hardware? OS/2 by itself is pretty slick, but it does recquire a
good machine under it.
The _absolute_ best realtime OS for a PC class machine is QUNIX (sp?). It's a
"sort of" UNIX for PCs'. Very hot.
As far as I understand AmigaDos is not a realtime OS. "Realtime" is a very
strict term, which means _much_ more than just pre-emptive multitasking.
It's used in time critical computing systems such as aircraft, control systems,
etc. It allows the system to guarantee specific timing to various threads. It
allows a minumal amount of time to be used in task switching and is memory
protected which the Amiga is not.
There really are options out there. No, Sysytem 7 and Windows 3.x arn't great
at that kind of thing, but there things which are.
People have been doing real world hardcore OS things since long before the
Amiga. The Amiga just brought it the home first. Now everybody is falling all
over themselves getting ready to do the same thing on a PC class machine.
i.e. OS/2, NT, PowerOpen, Taligent, etc, etc.
—- Andrew
"Good machine under it". I don't buy that one. A good OS over it is what's
important. Sure, throw enough hardware at it (speed) and the problems will be
masked. Any OS / App can look good. Most of the critical apps as you call
them are handled by embedded systems and controllers anyway with specialized
R/T kernels. Although RISC cpu's are "faster", people are over looking that a
CISC cpu takes less CODE than a RISC cpu with software doing the missing
instructions.
> Although RISC cpu's are "faster", people are over looking that a
> CISC cpu takes less CODE than a RISC cpu with software doing
> the missing instructions.
You seem to missunderstand the basic differences between CISC and RISC.
A CISC CPU brings in complex instructions and _interprets_ them using
micro-code. Most instructions requires a micro-code routine to be run.
RISC says "Why can't that micro-code be my actual machine code?". This cuts a
_lot_ of overhead out of the CPU.
I spent three years of my recent life _very_ deep in the microcode internals of
several large computers and I belive I have very good grounds to stand on.
Dollar for dollar, executing the same source code, a RISC machine will almost
always walk all over a CISC machine. i.e. a 66Mhz PowerPC601 chip is only $20
more than a 50Mhz 68060 yet is lots faster. And RISC chips are usually much
easier to scale to very high clocks and effective speeds.
You are 100% correct about OS efficiency. But, please don't forget that same
efficient OS could be modifed to run on a RISC machine.
The OS and the CPU are two different issues! Of course an good OS can make a
poor CPU look okay, and a pig OS can saddle a RISC CPU. But all things being
equal, a RISC computer will eat a CISC alive!
RISC _is_ the future for at least the rest of this decade until something
better comes along. (Which it will!) I can only hope that the OS's don't
become pigs.
—– Andrew
The microcode is usually onthe same chip as the cpu so it should be faster to
execute instructions from the microcode in a cisc than go out to memory in a
risc. It may be (speculation here) that ROM technology is part of the
bottleneck. My main point is that since risc trades microcode for external
software and a smaller instruction set that the external software is LARGER in
code size, load time from disk, etc. A risc and cisc with equivalent
instruction execution times (not clock speed) when running similar code should
have the cisc outpreform the risc. By code I mean: 1. Code that uses a variety
of the cisc instruction set that is not present in the risc instruction set
that the risc has to emulate through code. 2. Code that is larger than any
internal and external instruction cache. It is interesting to see that some
cpu's are now faster at executing floating point in software than by using
their companion co-processors. I am not a cisc vs risc (pro cisc) zealot, but
see usefulness in combining both methods in processor design. I don't like
having to remember a bazillion instructions for a cisc, yet don't want to write
lots of extra code for a risc that I could of had in a cisc. I vageuly
remember reading somewhere that the cisc instruction sets were chosen after
looking at real world code and finding the most commonly used instructions.
For some nostalgia, coding a PDP-8 was risc-like and I remember DEC's Writable
Control Store (roll your own instruction set). Harry M.
Andrew,
>>OS/2 by itself is pretty slick, but it does recquire a good machine
>>under it.
Put a NASA shuttle engine in a Pinto and it will scream too.
…Steve
====>>> Motorola 68030 Inside <<<====
My point exactly. I know this store down the block which had a really
bad cook. Instead of firing him they gave him money to buy food from
another store so they then could resale it as their own.
>Put a NASA shuttle engine in a Pinto and it will scream too.
Having to wory about O-ring failure AND rear-end collision I think I'd scream
too.
-Vree in VA
<I'd type, but I'm too incapaciated with LAUGHTER!>
Chris – Fast and Low on my '020!
Is it significant that my spell checker doesn't know "Quit"?
I can't sit here and not say something on that note:
>The _absolute_ best realtime OS for a PC class machine is QUNIX (sp?).
QNIX, and I was sent to school on it a couple of years ago. It is a good
version of Unix alright and great for programmers or folks that want to
run custom written business applications. But if Amiga died due to lack of
popular software packages with AmigaDos, it would have died _in the crib_
for want of same with any *nix operating system. You know what Unix
application programs cost?
>People have been doing real world hardcore OS things since long before
the ??Amiga. The Amiga just brought it the home first.
that's it, you said it: Amiga did it for the masses first, and Amigados is
now the most mature multitasking OS out there and will be for a while yet.
I see WinNT and System 7 as at about the stage of development AmigaDos was
when we ran 1.2 Ados. They have several revisions before they are equal to
my Amiga. The AmigaDos OS is really very stable now.
I have been involved in Unix installations that were so buggy the
purchaser pulled his hair out too, crashing Oracle and dumping data
everywhere. If you look at the AmigaDos commands and utilities we did in
fact port a lot of Unix to Amigados too. Not VI editor, thank god, but a
lot of the best commands.
Tom
Oklahoma City, OK
QNIX is _not_ UNIX. It looks like it but it aint. It is _very_ stable. It is
also a realtime OS for critical applications which AmigaDOS is _not_. (No
memory protection, and I don't think the scheduler is a real-time one).
Preemptive multitasking != realtime OS.
> You know what Unix application programs cost?
More than you can imagine! I am involved in an ugly product port for the
military to UNIX. Arrrgg!
I was _not_ advocating UNIX over AmigaDOS. I was only answering the _false_
assertion that AmigaDOS is the _best_ mutitasking OS out there. It may be one
of the best in the home, but it's a _big_ world out there!
> WinNT and System 7
You compare Apples and Oranges! System 7 doesn't pretend to be a real OS.
WinNT is, but is very new and needs work. (Don't confuse Windows 3.x/4.x with
Windows NT, they have little other than visual look in common)
—– Andrew
Thats because their heritage is batch processing not real-time processing.
And most users are not concerned with high bandwidth data aquisition and
recording. They are just moving spreadsheets and docs around. If you
need Real-time then you got to VRTX or some real-time kernal OS. But it
is not suited to the kind of stuff 99.9% of the people do on a pc.
wmc – via Autopilot!
Wayne,
> That's because their heritage is batch processing not real-time processing.
Understood, I was repeating what an IBM engineer told me when asked about the
possibilities of using OS/2 in such an environment. I'm not qualified to
comment on VRTX or any other real-time kernal OS.
I do know that multimedia (excuse the buzzword) is catching on, something
viable at the consumer level has to come along soon. Hardware that simply
overpowers the application has been the rule, if it doen't work we'll simply
build faster controllers, drives, video drivers…etc. I write music for a MM
application that's distributed by another network, PC, Mac and Amiga are the
platforms supported. Each issue supports sound, animation, multiple graphics,
text and multiple pages. The Amiga really shines (still) in this area, even an
underpowered 500 with enough RAM can view the magazine. I guess the rule is:
Software does not a multitasking system make.
I was always hoping for an Amiga on a grand scale, power and elegance.
(at a consumer level, of course) <grin>
regards
Howard
Do you realise how much RAM you must have just to run NT?? 12 Meg Ram
just to run NT!! I don't call that decent!!
-=Andrew=-
If IBM gets even half a chance they will KILL off Windows with OS/2 or
will Microsoft zap OS/2??????
Come on….one of these two companies has to kill off the other to survive
into the near future, or perhaps amalgamate and have only one OS…..
RGDS
Laurie Carroll AKL NZ
Longdistance Autopilot
Andy,
No, no-one has been able to show yet that CBM world-wide has hit the
skids. It is still a wait and see position (Monday 2nd), there is still a
postibility that we will have a much smaller company/s and a continual
target of the "Narrow-market" you mentioned. I still see that as being
able to keep the Amiga going and working for many of the people here.
The Amiga thankfully does not have to be everything to every one like
the PC's and Windows, they have a heck of alot further to fall than the
Amiga, and from an article last weekend (local newspaper) ref the
Microsoft "developement" of Windows, I saw clearly that they came very
close to losing it. Their installed user base has to have
something-anything to keep on going. Look at what they have got, a huge
O/S by our standards on a multiplicity of hardware suppliers (clones etc)
I just couldnt and would not afford the programmes you referenced, all
that stuff is aimed at companies that can write the lot off against TAX.
Period.
Rgds
Laurie Carroll AKL NZ
Longdistance Autopilot
Laurie,
>No, no-one has been able to show yet that CBM world-wide has hit the >skids.
It is still a wait and see position (Monday 2nd), there is still a
There certainly are fascinating rumours, especially from France and Germany;
but so far they are just rumours. The only official information I've seen (CIS,
GEnie, Dow Jones, etc.) strongly implies, if not outright states, that
Commodore everywhere –and the Amiga– has had it.
But these Amiga forums now are certainly entertaining, if in a somewhat bizarre
way… 🙂
>I just couldnt and would not afford the programmes you referenced, all >that
stuff is aimed at companies that can write the lot off against TAX. >Period.
A year ago, yes. However, there has been an incredible price-crash here in the
United States. A classic is Quattro-Pro. It has been cut, no, guillotined,
all the way down to $49.95 list — and street price is even less. It has been
followed by dramatic price drops in ALL of the "standard" Microsoft, Lotus, and
WordPerfect products, especially the latest "office suites". The deep discounts
are supposedly "Updates", and "Competitive Upgrades" — but it's mostly a game.
Here's what I bought, new, from retail dealers (not mail-order):
Quattro-Pro For Windows 5.0: $37 (Yes, thirty-seven dollars)
Microsoft Office 4.2 "Standard Edition" (standalone, not network group)
Includes three high-end applications:
. Word For Windows 6.0 (Word processor)
. Excel 5.0 (Spreadsheet)
. PowerPoint (Presentation Pkg)
.Plus accessories including a nice little "Office Manager" toolbar
OFFICE PKG PRICE: $270 (Yes, a "Special Competitive Upgrade" price — that
accepted the $37 Quattro-Pro as the competitive product…!)
So, I have two major spreadsheets, a major word-processor, and a major slide
presentation-creator — all advanced and sophisticated, and all for a total of
just over $300. One or two years ago this might have been $1000 or more — but
not today.
And if I just needed a spreadsheet, I could have stayed with Quattro-Pro — a
state-of-the-art package, for a measly $37.
I did a quick check on "similar" Amiga programs. Mail-order prices from a
magazine were $79 for Final Copy II (word processor), and $129 for Pro-Calc 2
(spreadsheet). That's already over $200, so any complete pkg would match the
cost of the Windows-based pkgs. But with a major difference. The Amiga
programs are primitive and unsophisticated — years behind the current Windows
and Mac apps.
There's that niche-market ogre. Amiga video/animation is great… but THAT'S
ALL IT'S GOT.
Yes, I hate Windows, and I'm disgusted at the absurd amounts of RAM and
harddrive that are necessary. But — the RAM and drives are now affordable, the
applications are IMPRESSIVE and at surprisingly low prices, and I use Windows
as simply the means to the end.
–apl
Calling PowerPoint "a major slide presentation-creator" is charitible, at
best. Unless by "major" you mean something other than usable, powerful,
etc.
Dale L. Larson R360: You hit 23 Enemy Virtua Formula: 1/8
Intangible Assets Manufacturing AS-1: Most qualified