Forum unknown
· Off the Cuff
#Multitasking
111 messages in this thread
I do – it's called the Amiga 500. What kind of calculator do you want? We
have HP and Ti copies, free-form scientific calculators, your basic +-/*=
calculator, all with the appropriate buttons, displays, printer tapes
(graphic simulations of tapes, actually); we have programmers calculators,
and we have special purpose calculators like financial calculators. All can
run concurrently on the screen with your telecom application with
overlapping windows and etc, on an Amiga 500 – which is under 800 $$$. I
rest my case, unless you re-throw the gauntlet. <grin> –Ben–
Oh, I forgot to mention that that price must include a 10 Meg hard disk, 2
3.5" floppies and a 5.25" floppy, a 2400 baud modem, a printer and a 1 Meg
RAMdisk. (also a detached keyboard which I understand the 500 doesn't
have) Time to go shoppin' again.
Well greg, that 1 meg will eat up about $350 in chips alone if you can find
them for that good a price, the 10 meg drive another $100 or so, $140 for
the modem, $200 for the 3.5" floppies, and all this only by digging in deep
to the mail order places, so that leaves about $10 for the CoCo and 5 1/4"
drive. I'll take all you have at that price, and start an OS9 school, with
a free computer thrown in and included in the tuition fee.
Well greg, that 1 meg will eat up about $350 in chips alone if you can find
them for that good a price, the 10 meg drive another $100 or so, $140 for
the modem, $200 for the 3.5" floppies, and all this only by digging in deep
to the mail order places, so that leaves about $10 for the CoCo and 5 1/4"
drive. I'll take all you have at that price, and start an OS9 school, with
a free computer thrown in and included in the tuition fee.
Yes – you _did_ forget to mention that. Of course, you can't do that with
the CoCo, either, unless you shop and hack. If you shop and hack, you can
get _all_ of that together, and if you /exit want a detached keyboard, get
an a1000, that's all. I can point you at new ones, still in boxes, or
used. Anyway, I'm going to drop out of this – it's absurd to try and
compare the two machine sseriously; I can't accept the CoCo as a serious
contender at this point – the Amiga has completely eclipsed it. –Ben–
It of course it depends on what you are contending for. If you are trying to
put together a system with the best graphics available at whatever expense,
then, yes the Amiga is the way to go; however, if you want a powerful
multitasking system with color graphics and plenty of SERIOUS and
entertainment software available that doesn't require a second mortgage on
the house, the Color Computer is the only way to go.
True, almost none of my system was purchased from Tandy (not even the COCO
3), and a lot of it was used, but I was trying to make a point without
referring to the now infamous $130 sale price for the 128k COCO 3. No matter
how you slice it, the COCO is always going to come out less expensive and
believe it or not, there are MILLIONS of people who are involved with
computers that do not have $1000-5000 to drop for it. Like many of them, I
started with a 16k COCO that was selling for less than a 300 baud modem at
the time.
Nuff said. This is getting too expensive, so I will have to let you all sit
around and congradulate yourselves, but don't fool yourselves into thinking
it is the only serious computer out there.
>>> Greg W <<<
It of course it depends on what you are contending for. If you are trying to
put together a system with the best graphics available at whatever expense,
then, yes the Amiga is the way to go; however, if you want a powerful
multitasking system with color graphics and plenty of SERIOUS and
entertainment software available that doesn't require a second mortgage on
the house, the Color Computer is the only way to go.
True, almost none of my system was purchased from Tandy (not even the COCO
3), and a lot of it was used, but I was trying to make a point without
referring to the now infamous $130 sale price for the 128k COCO 3. No matter
how you slice it, the COCO is always going to come out less expensive and
believe it or not, there are MILLIONS of people who are involved with
computers that do not have $1000-5000 to drop for it. Like many of them, I
started with a 16k COCO that was selling for less than a 300 baud modem at
the time.
Nuff said. This is getting too expensive, so I will have to let you all sit
around and congradulate yourselves, but don't fool yourselves into thinking
it is the only serious computer out there.
>>> Greg W <<<
Yes – you _did_ forget to mention that. Of course, you can't do that with
the CoCo, either, unless you shop and hack. If you shop and hack, you can
get _all_ of that together, and if you /exit want a detached keyboard, get
an a1000, that's all. I can point you at new ones, still in boxes, or
used. Anyway, I'm going to drop out of this – it's absurd to try and
compare the two machine sseriously; I can't accept the CoCo as a serious
contender at this point – the Amiga has completely eclipsed it. –Ben–
Oh, I forgot to mention that that price must include a 10 Meg hard disk, 2
3.5" floppies and a 5.25" floppy, a 2400 baud modem, a printer and a 1 Meg
RAMdisk. (also a detached keyboard which I understand the 500 doesn't
have) Time to go shoppin' again.
If you can do all of that in a 512K Amiga (as the message you replied to
suggested, and as your response – under $800 Amiga 500) suggested, please let
me know how! I have a 512K 1000 and can barely run anything without immense
frustration.
Multitasking is a real powerful tool. Unfortunately if you have a low-level
system (like 512K) it's a pain in the butt. Why? You may say "well just
don't multitask". My response is that just about everything EXPECTS you to
multitask. I print a decent-sized document in WordPerfect without quitting
WordPerfect and running the print program separately. Before you sink your
teeth into that one, I can't do any decent graphing whatsoever with
MaxxiPlan. And, (unbelievably in my opinion) my terminal programs don't even
have an editable buffer, because they expect me to be multitasking a text
editor in the background!!
Now, I'm not denying the power of the computer, and the power of multitasking
at all. It's wonderful. And when I have 1 meg I'll be living happily – at
1.5 meg I'll be smiling broadly. But, there is another side to it. I think
a 512K Amiga is a significantly less functional computer than an ST at 512K,
and in many ways "practically" less functional too – as in my second
paragraph.
Basically Henry, you are using the wrong tools for the size of your machine.
Use the lesser ones or don't multitask. It's simple.
-larry
Tis not that simple! Find me a terminal program that does what an ST does in
512K (that includes editable buffer) and I'd agree with you. The ST does a
whole lot more in 512K.
I'm -not- Amiga bashing. I'm happier now that I have my Amiga and will
expand it soon. But, it's not perfect everywhere – and a 512K machine is a
weak system, and expansion is expensive. I do know that once I actually do
that expansion, I'll have a much more powerful and capable computer. But I'm
not so sure about the Amiga as a computer for the average home user who is
NOT an enthusiast and needs a professional level word processor. I sure
wouldn't recommend an ST either – but I'd probably have to recommend a PC
clone. At 640K many programs are quite comfy for such use.
There are a couple of observations I'd make about your statements Henry. The
first is that yes, it may be that a 512K ST can do 'more' in terms you are
referencing. It cannot do more in reference to other things, period.
Remember, there are a lot of different reasons that there may be a different
(better or worse) set of programs in any given area on one machine than
another.
Perhaps you are also forgettng that some features are more important to one
machine than another. A small terminal program is far more powerful on the
Amiga than it is on the Atari, simply because you can call up other programs
to do the same things that must be done within the terminal program on the
Atari. Note that this means you should not use the wrong tool, in this case
the 'wrong' tool being one that does not do what you want it to do, but is
too large to allow you to use another tool at the same time.
It is simple Henry, unless you are trying to do a workaround on the laws of
physics by attempting to put more into your silicon than it is capable of
handling.
-larry
Well, for better or for worse, a 512K ST is considerably more capable than a
512K Amiga. Practically. And not considering expansion. Notice the strong
qualifying restrictions I'm placing on my statements.
Your point that you can "call up other programs to do the same things that
must be done within the terminal program on the Atari" is valid on machines
with greater than 512K, but I can't get much of anything to multitask in a
512K computer besides maybe another CLI. ANd I do have to take away
Addbuffers for that – and I won't tell you about directory lists when you do
that.
Again, I'm far from unhappy. But it's fun to find various places where a
machine doesn't work particularly well because then you can argue about it,
especially within a forum of enthusiasts for that machine. 🙂
Henry,
As you know, I had a 512K ST and then upgradded it to a 1 Meg ST at
the same time I had my 512K Amiga. The biggest difference was that on the ST
you had all 512K to play with (so to speak…you didn't have all of it
really).
On the Amiga, IF you shut off multi-tasking (not user selectable) you
could also have the full 512K to play with, but the Amiga always has several
tasks running, right now I have 13 running in my 1 Meg A2000 and still I have
475080 bytes available for other programs.
If you try to run a large program (I presume WP is) then you will
obviously have less room for other programs. That is a limitation, but
running smaller programs works fine. Before I expanded my original Amiga
A1000 to 1.5 Meg, I did run out of memory every now and then…but rarely.
Don
Henry,
As you know, I had a 512K ST and then upgradded it to a 1 Meg ST at
the same time I had my 512K Amiga. The biggest difference was that on the ST
you had all 512K to play with (so to speak…you didn't have all of it
really).
On the Amiga, IF you shut off multi-tasking (not user selectable) you
could also have the full 512K to play with, but the Amiga always has several
tasks running, right now I have 13 running in my 1 Meg A2000 and still I have
475080 bytes available for other programs.
If you try to run a large program (I presume WP is) then you will
obviously have less room for other programs. That is a limitation, but
running smaller programs works fine. Before I expanded my original Amiga
A1000 to 1.5 Meg, I did run out of memory every now and then…but rarely.
Don
Henry,
I think your observations are based mainly opon the way Word Perfect
allows the user to Multi-task on the Amiga. <- Not at all. The answer I get
from that is get more memory, or dump Word Perfect. I do _not_ get "I can't
get much of anything to multitask in a 512K computer (Amiga) besides maybe
another CLI. You need to expand your "strong qualifying restrictions" to
include the fact that you are running Word Perfect.
No, not exactly – it's true with just about anything. When I run WP, I can
run only WP and I can't even print – I have to save my file and run the print
program separately.
When I run my terminal program, I can run only my terminal program. That's
what my comment "not gettipng much of anything to multitask in a 512K
computer" was referring to in fact. I can run my terminal program, but I
can't have an editable capture buffer because there isn't one – the programs
expect me to have a text editor running in the background. Which I assume is
in the long run going to be a very powerful thing.
But in 512K it makes the machine's usefulness very limited.
Henry,
What terminal software package are you using? Mind if I try a little
experiment with it and Ed? If you want/need an editable capture buffer, and
the terminal software package that you are using is too large for your
configuration, maybe you should think of a smaller term package. Say, Aterm.
-John
Henry,
What terminal software package are you using? Mind if I try a little
experiment with it and Ed? If you want/need an editable capture buffer, and
the terminal software package that you are using is too large for your
configuration, maybe you should think of a smaller term package. Say, Aterm.
-John
Would you care to NAME your terminal program?
STOP ASKING ME THAT! I CAN'T!! (grin) However, I will try again to get
Access! up and running with an editor. (I probably will be forced to use
the one with the AmigaDOS disk, ick). I am open to suggestions, believe me
(but then I won't be able to gripe, sigh). 🙂
Now, henry – you can too gripe – there's plenty of griping material. I'll
lend you some from my stack (which currently is about 4 stories high)
<–Pun –Ben–
Now, henry – you can too gripe – there's plenty of griping material. I'll
lend you some from my stack (which currently is about 4 stories high)
<–Pun –Ben–
Well, for an editor, I use UEdit. My startup-sequence runs it, and it
is there waiting ALL of the time. Before you go running of and trying it, I
must mention that I have 2.5mb on my machine, and have had it for 2 years
that way. The extra memory was the 1st addon (well, I got the 1000 with the
extra drive and memory up to .5meg) that I got. It is perhaps the best
investement I've made in Amiga 'peripherals', except, of course, for my
account on CIS.
Well, for an editor, I use UEdit. My startup-sequence runs it, and it
is there waiting ALL of the time. Before you go running of and trying it, I
must mention that I have 2.5mb on my machine, and have had it for 2 years
that way. The extra memory was the 1st addon (well, I got the 1000 with the
extra drive and memory up to .5meg) that I got. It is perhaps the best
investement I've made in Amiga 'peripherals', except, of course, for my
account on CIS.
Henry,
If you can't tell us what terminal program you are using…you must
be beta testing a new one. If so, tell the authors to FIX the darn thing.
There is no reason for a terminal program to eat up that much memory!
Don
Henry,
If you can't tell us what terminal program you are using…you must
be beta testing a new one. If so, tell the authors to FIX the darn thing.
There is no reason for a terminal program to eat up that much memory!
Don
STOP ASKING ME THAT! I CAN'T!! (grin) However, I will try again to get
Access! up and running with an editor. (I probably will be forced to use
the one with the AmigaDOS disk, ick). I am open to suggestions, believe me
(but then I won't be able to gripe, sigh). 🙂
Would you care to NAME your terminal program?
Sounds like you could 'get there' now by changing to a smaller term program
AND a smaller editor. You can certainly do both (and more) in a 512k machine
– I did for over a year. –Ben–
No, not exactly – it's true with just about anything. When I run WP, I can
run only WP and I can't even print – I have to save my file and run the print
program separately.
When I run my terminal program, I can run only my terminal program. That's
what my comment "not gettipng much of anything to multitask in a 512K
computer" was referring to in fact. I can run my terminal program, but I
can't have an editable capture buffer because there isn't one – the programs
expect me to have a text editor running in the background. Which I assume is
in the long run going to be a very powerful thing.
But in 512K it makes the machine's usefulness very limited.
Henry,
I think your observations are based mainly opon the way Word Perfect
allows the user to Multi-task on the Amiga. <- Not at all. The answer I get
from that is get more memory, or dump Word Perfect. I do _not_ get "I can't
get much of anything to multitask in a 512K computer (Amiga) besides maybe
another CLI. You need to expand your "strong qualifying restrictions" to
include the fact that you are running Word Perfect.
Henry,
Oh yes… You probably know this already but make sure that you're Word
Perfect is running with the t: directory assigned to a device other than
ram:. I don't know how large a temp file created by WP is, but a few K here
and a few K there…
Hey – wait a minnit – "wp doesn't allow you to multitask on the amiga" ???
No? It Takes Over? Tell me it's not true!
WordPerfect does allow multitasking. In fact in a big way – its macros
multitask and so do it's print program. VVVery very nice. a
Unfortunately it's not practical in a machine with less than or equal to 1
meg.
In fact, each document is treated as a separate task too.
In fact, each document is treated as a separate task too.
I don't know whether it's style with you or what, but I notice that
your upper case vee 'V' often shows up as 2 or even three of them, perhaps
your keyboard is acting up?
That's funny – I'm having problems with V's big time. That one I just typed
didn't come up at all. Your name shows up as "ic" in fact. Sigh. Bug!
That's funny – I'm having problems with V's big time. That one I just typed
didn't come up at all. Your name shows up as "ic" in fact. Sigh. Bug!
I don't know whether it's style with you or what, but I notice that
your upper case vee 'V' often shows up as 2 or even three of them, perhaps
your keyboard is acting up?
Aha. I see. Thought for a minute we had another EA on our hands. –Ben–
WordPerfect does allow multitasking. In fact in a big way – its macros
multitask and so do it's print program. VVVery very nice. a
Unfortunately it's not practical in a machine with less than or equal to 1
meg.
No. WP will multitask fine, IF the user has expanded memory. The
program must be huge as it is unusable in a machine with 512k.
Wordperfect -is- useable on a 512K computer. I did my last termpaper with
endnotes with that setup, in fact. It wasn't easy (I even did it with 1
drive to keep 30K free) and I hope I never have to do it again, but it's
useable.
Wordperfect -is- useable on a 512K computer. I did my last termpaper with
endnotes with that setup, in fact. It wasn't easy (I even did it with 1
drive to keep 30K free) and I hope I never have to do it again, but it's
useable.
Thanks; had me going there – thought we had another EA on our hands <smirk>
No. WP will multitask fine, IF the user has expanded memory. The
program must be huge as it is unusable in a machine with 512k.
Hey – wait a minnit – "wp doesn't allow you to multitask on the amiga" ???
No? It Takes Over? Tell me it's not true!
That's a good idea actually. My second floppy should be coming in the door
today, and I'll assign my T: somewhere else (to the second floppy). I didn't
want to do any more disk swapping by assigning T: to DF0: and only DF0:
(since that's all I have!) But I'll play around with that this weekend,
thanks for the tip!
That's a good idea actually. My second floppy should be coming in the door
today, and I'll assign my T: somewhere else (to the second floppy). I didn't
want to do any more disk swapping by assigning T: to DF0: and only DF0:
(since that's all I have!) But I'll play around with that this weekend,
thanks for the tip!
Henry,
Oh yes… You probably know this already but make sure that you're Word
Perfect is running with the t: directory assigned to a device other than
ram:. I don't know how large a temp file created by WP is, but a few K here
and a few K there…
I stand by my statements. That you choose to use Addbuffers is exactly
that; a choice that will impose limitations on you. That you choose to run
a large word processor will further impose limitations. Any files in RAM:
or VD0:, large terminal programs (the smallest here in the DLs is about
7K), and other factors also limit your options. When I ran a 512K 1000 (for
about 2 years) I did not find the same limitations you feel are there. I
think this is because I didn't have expectations beyond what I knew the
machine was capable of. I ran (and still run) Aterm, I ran TxEd
concurrently, and often used the CLI to type something to the printer.
Sure, I could have loaded up a large game and a terminal prgram, but then I
would expect not to be able to print to the printer at the same time.
-larry
Oops… forgot one thing… Henry, you mentioned 'another CLI'. i would ask
why you would waste that memory on another CLI. For that matter, when you
feel the crunch, why not refrain from loading up WorkBench? RUN any programs
from the first CLI that comes up, and you will have more space.
-larry
Unfortunately I have to have another CLI to do disk directories and things
(another example of what an ST terminal program does inside the program, and
for some reason fits in 512K.) They have to do that because you can't
multitask.
But on the Amiga, they don't have to worry about things like that – (putting
disk commands in). Unfortunately when you don't have enough memory to do
the multitasking that in many ways is suspected, you're running on empty.
You don't have to have a second CLI to do disk directories. Reread your
AmigaDOS manual — play close attention to the run command.
I am very familiar with the RUN command. As I understand it, it executes the
program being RUN in the second CLI, leaving the first CLI free. In essence
you have 2 CLIs. AT least that's how I understood it.
I am very familiar with the RUN command. As I understand it, it executes the
program being RUN in the second CLI, leaving the first CLI free. In essence
you have 2 CLIs. AT least that's how I understood it.
You don't have to have a second CLI to do disk directories. Reread your
AmigaDOS manual — play close attention to the run command.
Henry,
You're running on empty because you filled up on dessert before starting
the meat and potatoes.
Check out the RUN command. The RUN command is your friend. Get to know it,
and it will help you.
-larry
Henry,
You're running on empty because you filled up on dessert before starting
the meat and potatoes.
Check out the RUN command. The RUN command is your friend. Get to know it,
and it will help you.
-larry
Henry,
What the heck terminal program are you using? When I was limited to
512K on my A1000….I did an awful lot of telecomm and had no problem getting
disk directories?
Don
Grump. I can't say. But, if I switched to something "normal" like Access
1.30a, I'd have a far less capable program than what I could do on the ST.
And I'd have to load in a very weak text editor. I have a better message to
Larry that explains this in more detail.
Grump. I can't say. But, if I switched to something "normal" like Access
1.30a, I'd have a far less capable program than what I could do on the ST.
And I'd have to load in a very weak text editor. I have a better message to
Larry that explains this in more detail.
Henry,
What the heck terminal program are you using? When I was limited to
512K on my A1000….I did an awful lot of telecomm and had no problem getting
disk directories?
Don
Unfortunately I have to have another CLI to do disk directories and things
(another example of what an ST terminal program does inside the program, and
for some reason fits in 512K.) They have to do that because you can't
multitask.
But on the Amiga, they don't have to worry about things like that – (putting
disk commands in). Unfortunately when you don't have enough memory to do
the multitasking that in many ways is suspected, you're running on empty.
Oops… forgot one thing… Henry, you mentioned 'another CLI'. i would ask
why you would waste that memory on another CLI. For that matter, when you
feel the crunch, why not refrain from loading up WorkBench? RUN any programs
from the first CLI that comes up, and you will have more space.
-larry
VVVery true! But the point is that a terminal program running on a 512K ST
is a lot more powerful than one running on a 512K Amiga. The reason being
that the terminal program expects a text editor in the background, which I
can't do (not enough memory) whereas on the ST I had global search and
replace, block cut move copy print and save, and deleting of characters and
parts I didn't want to save.
I won't do that on the Amiga until I have enough bucks to get memory so I can
have a text editor in the background.
Another example is WordPerfect – with 2 floppies and 512K you can print,
spell check comfortably. With Amiga WP I have to save the file before I
print – it's, more memory hungry.
However, with both of those examples, when more memory sits on my computer,
it'll be much more powerful than anything on the ST. I can see that already.
But I do remain skeptical of the viability of a 512K Amiga. It's like a
castrated computer. And it's got significantly less value than a 1 or 1.5
meg computer. And I'm not just talking about the $ value of the ram chips.
Methinks you are using the wrong programs on you 512K Amiga. I know
you are using WordPerfect (you keep telling me how WONDERFUL it is), but you
have yet to tell me which term program you are using. BTW if WP is so
wonderful, how come it doesn't let you run in a 512K Amiga like YOU want to?
I can't tell you what terminal program I'm using (big grin). WordPerfect
does run in a 512K system, but there are sacrifices to be made – ones that I
suspected, but not quite to the degree that they exist.
I wouldn't be happier with any other program. As long as I have the minimum
hardware configuration for it, I'm alot happier than if I could multitask
with the other Mickey Mouse Amiga WordProcessors.
Ahh… therin lies the rub, to paraphrase the Bard. You would rather use WP
than multitask. Well, the choice is yours, but I do find it rather amazing
that you make a lot of statements that make it sound like you have no choice;
that you MUST run certain programs; that somehow the machine is at fault for
not having enough memory to get the job done. In short, you are imposing
limitations on your operating environment by your choices. By all means, use
any programs you want, but remember, there _are_ other alternatives, and
those other alternatives include choices that will allow you to use the
machine as she was meant to be used.
One further comment on your statement about the ST vs. Amiga and terminal
programs… It shoudl more properly read that no Amiga terminal program you
have seen allows as much built-in utility as one you have used on the ST. I
would point out that on the Amiga, using a functional terminal program like
Aterm (to name a small one, about 50K), you are free to do a lot of other
things at the same time as you are telecommunicating. Does the terminal
program on the ST allow you to unARC programs while downloading another? Does
it allow you to do virtually any operation for which there is a command in
the C: directory?
-larry
Ahh… therin lies the rub, to paraphrase the Bard. You would rather use WP
than multitask. Well, the choice is yours, but I do find it rather amazing
that you make a lot of statements that make it sound like you have no choice;
that you MUST run certain programs; that somehow the machine is at fault for
not having enough memory to get the job done. In short, you are imposing
limitations on your operating environment by your choices. By all means, use
any programs you want, but remember, there _are_ other alternatives, and
those other alternatives include choices that will allow you to use the
machine as she was meant to be used.
One further comment on your statement about the ST vs. Amiga and terminal
programs… It shoudl more properly read that no Amiga terminal program you
have seen allows as much built-in utility as one you have used on the ST. I
would point out that on the Amiga, using a functional terminal program like
Aterm (to name a small one, about 50K), you are free to do a lot of other
things at the same time as you are telecommunicating. Does the terminal
program on the ST allow you to unARC programs while downloading another? Does
it allow you to do virtually any operation for which there is a command in
the C: directory?
-larry
I can't tell you what terminal program I'm using (big grin). WordPerfect
does run in a 512K system, but there are sacrifices to be made – ones that I
suspected, but not quite to the degree that they exist.
I wouldn't be happier with any other program. As long as I have the minimum
hardware configuration for it, I'm alot happier than if I could multitask
with the other Mickey Mouse Amiga WordProcessors.
Methinks you are using the wrong programs on you 512K Amiga. I know
you are using WordPerfect (you keep telling me how WONDERFUL it is), but you
have yet to tell me which term program you are using. BTW if WP is so
wonderful, how come it doesn't let you run in a 512K Amiga like YOU want to?
Henry,
You can't put Methane fuel in a street bike and expect to go anywhere
fast.
-John
John,
Well, if you put nitomethane fuel into it, it will go somewhere fast. But
not any distance. 8)
Doug
John,
Well, if you put nitomethane fuel into it, it will go somewhere fast. But
not any distance. 8)
Doug
Henry,
You can't put Methane fuel in a street bike and expect to go anywhere
fast.
-John
Henry,
I will stick to my guns on this one, based on my experiences. I grant that
a 1 meg or better Amiga is significantly better, but remain firm in saying
that if you recognize the lkimitations of 512K, and run the appropriate
tools, a 512K machine is not only viable, but gives significantly more, and
more flexible functionality than single tasking machines. On a single tasker,
each program has to provide duplicate features, and in doing so, leaves the
user far less choice in, for example, how his editor looks and acts.
-larry
If you don't have enough memory to run that editor, what good is the ability
to multitask it? Especially if the main program EXPECTS you to be able to
multitask it?
When I got my A1000, I had 256k. I didn't get the 512k upgrade for three
weeks. What do you expect from mail order? Life on a 256k machine is
something awful. Moving to 512k was the second best thing I did on the
Amiga. Moving to 1M on the 2000 was the best.
When I got my A1000, I had 256k. I didn't get the 512k upgrade for three
weeks. What do you expect from mail order? Life on a 256k machine is
something awful. Moving to 512k was the second best thing I did on the
Amiga. Moving to 1M on the 2000 was the best.
Simple, DONT use the terminal you are using now! It eats up TOO much RAM!
Simple, DONT use the terminal you are using now! It eats up TOO much RAM!
Henry,
I get the feeling that you aren't listening, or that you misunderstand.
What I am saying is that you tailor your operation, the programs you use, and
the number of programs you use to the system you have. You cannot cram more
into the machine than you have memory for. This is an immutable principle. It
is a matter of whether you want the multitasking or or the particular
programs you run more.
You remind me of the guy who was having a house built. He wanted it small,
becuase he couldn't afford a big one, but inside, he wanted large rooms, and
plenty of them.
-larry
Henry,
I get the feeling that you aren't listening, or that you misunderstand.
What I am saying is that you tailor your operation, the programs you use, and
the number of programs you use to the system you have. You cannot cram more
into the machine than you have memory for. This is an immutable principle. It
is a matter of whether you want the multitasking or or the particular
programs you run more.
You remind me of the guy who was having a house built. He wanted it small,
becuase he couldn't afford a big one, but inside, he wanted large rooms, and
plenty of them.
-larry
What programs EXPECT another editor? That's VERY poor program design — you
should be able to pick and choose your own!
–Gabe
What programs EXPECT another editor? That's VERY poor program design — you
should be able to pick and choose your own!
–Gabe
If you don't have enough memory to run that editor, what good is the ability
to multitask it? Especially if the main program EXPECTS you to be able to
multitask it?
Henry,
I will stick to my guns on this one, based on my experiences. I grant that
a 1 meg or better Amiga is significantly better, but remain firm in saying
that if you recognize the lkimitations of 512K, and run the appropriate
tools, a 512K machine is not only viable, but gives significantly more, and
more flexible functionality than single tasking machines. On a single tasker,
each program has to provide duplicate features, and in doing so, leaves the
user far less choice in, for example, how his editor looks and acts.
-larry
Henry,
Read carefully what you've written " … a terminal program running on a
512KST is alot more powerful than one running on a 512K Amiga…" Yes,
but… (and all the stipulations that everybody has added so far…) AND the
fact that the ST program HAS to provide everything else because there ain't
no such animal as a multitasking ST. Further, Your choice of programs is
_YOUR_ choice – you live and prosper or decay and die thereupon (ghastly
imagery if I do say so myself)
Anyhow, don't lay the blame at the feet of the Amiga itself vs the ST itself.
The programs you use by your choice are the crux of the problem.
-sigh- go spend 20 minutes with Interlink ST. Find someone who knows the
program to give you a demonstration. Keep an open mind. It sells for $35 on
the ST. If anything is available on the Amiga, up to $100, please let me
know. The program I'm looking doesn't have to BE Interlink for the Amiga, or
look like it, or written by the same people. It just has tbe on the same
level, and have roughly the same amount of features. It can even be $99.95
and have a couple less features. I'd be happy. Honestly.
-sigh- go spend 20 minutes with Interlink ST. Find someone who knows the
program to give you a demonstration. Keep an open mind. It sells for $35 on
the ST. If anything is available on the Amiga, up to $100, please let me
know. The program I'm looking doesn't have to BE Interlink for the Amiga, or
look like it, or written by the same people. It just has tbe on the same
level, and have roughly the same amount of features. It can even be $99.95
and have a couple less features. I'd be happy. Honestly.
Henry,
Read carefully what you've written " … a terminal program running on a
512KST is alot more powerful than one running on a 512K Amiga…" Yes,
but… (and all the stipulations that everybody has added so far…) AND the
fact that the ST program HAS to provide everything else because there ain't
no such animal as a multitasking ST. Further, Your choice of programs is
_YOUR_ choice – you live and prosper or decay and die thereupon (ghastly
imagery if I do say so myself)
Anyhow, don't lay the blame at the feet of the Amiga itself vs the ST itself.
The programs you use by your choice are the crux of the problem.
VVVery true! But the point is that a terminal program running on a 512K ST
is a lot more powerful than one running on a 512K Amiga. The reason being
that the terminal program expects a text editor in the background, which I
can't do (not enough memory) whereas on the ST I had global search and
replace, block cut move copy print and save, and deleting of characters and
parts I didn't want to save.
I won't do that on the Amiga until I have enough bucks to get memory so I can
have a text editor in the background.
Another example is WordPerfect – with 2 floppies and 512K you can print,
spell check comfortably. With Amiga WP I have to save the file before I
print – it's, more memory hungry.
However, with both of those examples, when more memory sits on my computer,
it'll be much more powerful than anything on the ST. I can see that already.
But I do remain skeptical of the viability of a 512K Amiga. It's like a
castrated computer. And it's got significantly less value than a 1 or 1.5
meg computer. And I'm not just talking about the $ value of the ram chips.
I stand by my statements. That you choose to use Addbuffers is exactly
that; a choice that will impose limitations on you. That you choose to run
a large word processor will further impose limitations. Any files in RAM:
or VD0:, large terminal programs (the smallest here in the DLs is about
7K), and other factors also limit your options. When I ran a 512K 1000 (for
about 2 years) I did not find the same limitations you feel are there. I
think this is because I didn't have expectations beyond what I knew the
machine was capable of. I ran (and still run) Aterm, I ran TxEd
concurrently, and often used the CLI to type something to the printer.
Sure, I could have loaded up a large game and a terminal prgram, but then I
would expect not to be able to print to the printer at the same time.
-larry
Well, for better or for worse, a 512K ST is considerably more capable than a
512K Amiga. Practically. And not considering expansion. Notice the strong
qualifying restrictions I'm placing on my statements.
Your point that you can "call up other programs to do the same things that
must be done within the terminal program on the Atari" is valid on machines
with greater than 512K, but I can't get much of anything to multitask in a
512K computer besides maybe another CLI. ANd I do have to take away
Addbuffers for that – and I won't tell you about directory lists when you do
that.
Again, I'm far from unhappy. But it's fun to find various places where a
machine doesn't work particularly well because then you can argue about it,
especially within a forum of enthusiasts for that machine. 🙂
There are a couple of observations I'd make about your statements Henry. The
first is that yes, it may be that a 512K ST can do 'more' in terms you are
referencing. It cannot do more in reference to other things, period.
Remember, there are a lot of different reasons that there may be a different
(better or worse) set of programs in any given area on one machine than
another.
Perhaps you are also forgettng that some features are more important to one
machine than another. A small terminal program is far more powerful on the
Amiga than it is on the Atari, simply because you can call up other programs
to do the same things that must be done within the terminal program on the
Atari. Note that this means you should not use the wrong tool, in this case
the 'wrong' tool being one that does not do what you want it to do, but is
too large to allow you to use another tool at the same time.
It is simple Henry, unless you are trying to do a workaround on the laws of
physics by attempting to put more into your silicon than it is capable of
handling.
-larry
Henry,
You would be selling them a dead-end.
-John
Henry,
You would be selling them a dead-end.
-John
Tis not that simple! Find me a terminal program that does what an ST does in
512K (that includes editable buffer) and I'd agree with you. The ST does a
whole lot more in 512K.
I'm -not- Amiga bashing. I'm happier now that I have my Amiga and will
expand it soon. But, it's not perfect everywhere – and a 512K machine is a
weak system, and expansion is expensive. I do know that once I actually do
that expansion, I'll have a much more powerful and capable computer. But I'm
not so sure about the Amiga as a computer for the average home user who is
NOT an enthusiast and needs a professional level word processor. I sure
wouldn't recommend an ST either – but I'd probably have to recommend a PC
clone. At 640K many programs are quite comfy for such use.
Basically Henry, you are using the wrong tools for the size of your machine.
Use the lesser ones or don't multitask. It's simple.
-larry
Well…. if you had asked _me_, I would not have reccomended either WP or
maxiplan for a 512k user. For that matter, I wouldn't have reccomended
maxipaln at all, and wordperfect only under duress, after convincing argument
that you couldn't live without the special features; It's not a very good
amiga program, in my opinion. Yet, anyway. Listen, no matter WHAT size
machine you have, you can always pick a couple of things it's going to be
difficult to multitask with. There are programs out there that look at how
much memory you have, and promptly allocate it all, or most of it. If you had
a 1 meg system, some programs would barely fit – also a two meg system; You
_can_ do all of that in a 512k system – just depends where you set your
sights. –Ben–
My point is that the Amiga isn't perfect in all areas. I think I've found
a hole that's covered up in marketing strategies.
You can rest assured that I won't ask you for software advice. After word
processing for over 5 years (including at a lawyer's office using dedicated
IBM word processors on lasers and ultra-fast daisy wheels) WordPerfect is by
far and away the very best product I have ever seen for serious word
processing. nothing even comes close, including everything I've seen on the
IBM and Mac (and I took a serious look at MS Word and MS Write and WordStar).
I was also very impressed with Maxxiplan Plus. Considering that you don't
even own WordPerfect I wish you'd stop badmouthping them.
But, no matter what, considering that you don't think much of either of
these programs,$
% MONNCI Network connection interrupted, possible data loss.
[Attached, running]
Henry,
But it is indicative of their entire mentality at the time when marble
Madness was released. It is now only indicative of their mentality in the
games area.
No, I don't bash EA because it's "in". I bash them because they continue to
put out half finished programs that crash my machine, or would crash it if I
ever ran them. I have games from other companies that behave like they
should. Shanghai and Mindwalker are my favourites, and they don't crash the
machine… they multitask and let me exit them to my normal environment. If
other companies can do it, so can EA.
EA has publicly stated here on the forum that they might not have room for
some of the digitized sounds if they put in analog stick support. I think
this attitude is reprehensible. Trading off proper realistic control in
favour of glitz (and copy protection) does nothing to raise my opinion of
them.
-larry
My point is that the Amiga isn't perfect in all areas. I think I've found
a hole that's covered up in marketing strategies.
You can rest assured that I won't ask you for software advice. After word
processing for over 5 years (including at a lawyer's office using dedicated
IBM word processors on lasers and ultra-fast daisy wheels) WordPerfect is by
far and away the very best product I have ever seen for serious word
processing. nothing even comes close, including everything I've seen on the
IBM and Mac (and I took a serious look at MS Word and MS Write and WordStar).
I was also very impressed with Maxxiplan Plus. Considering that you don't
even own WordPerfect I wish you'd stop badmouthping them.
But, no matter what, considering that you don't think much of either of
these programs,$
% MONNCI Network connection interrupted, possible data loss.
[Attached, running]
Henry,
But it is indicative of their entire mentality at the time when marble
Madness was released. It is now only indicative of their mentality in the
games area.
No, I don't bash EA because it's "in". I bash them because they continue to
put out half finished programs that crash my machine, or would crash it if I
ever ran them. I have games from other companies that behave like they
should. Shanghai and Mindwalker are my favourites, and they don't crash the
machine… they multitask and let me exit them to my normal environment. If
other companies can do it, so can EA.
EA has publicly stated here on the forum that they might not have room for
some of the digitized sounds if they put in analog stick support. I think
this attitude is reprehensible. Trading off proper realistic control in
favour of glitz (and copy protection) does nothing to raise my opinion of
them.
-larry
Well…. if you had asked _me_, I would not have reccomended either WP or
maxiplan for a 512k user. For that matter, I wouldn't have reccomended
maxipaln at all, and wordperfect only under duress, after convincing argument
that you couldn't live without the special features; It's not a very good
amiga program, in my opinion. Yet, anyway. Listen, no matter WHAT size
machine you have, you can always pick a couple of things it's going to be
difficult to multitask with. There are programs out there that look at how
much memory you have, and promptly allocate it all, or most of it. If you had
a 1 meg system, some programs would barely fit – also a two meg system; You
_can_ do all of that in a 512k system – just depends where you set your
sights. –Ben–
If you can do all of that in a 512K Amiga (as the message you replied to
suggested, and as your response – under $800 Amiga 500) suggested, please let
me know how! I have a 512K 1000 and can barely run anything without immense
frustration.
Multitasking is a real powerful tool. Unfortunately if you have a low-level
system (like 512K) it's a pain in the butt. Why? You may say "well just
don't multitask". My response is that just about everything EXPECTS you to
multitask. I print a decent-sized document in WordPerfect without quitting
WordPerfect and running the print program separately. Before you sink your
teeth into that one, I can't do any decent graphing whatsoever with
MaxxiPlan. And, (unbelievably in my opinion) my terminal programs don't even
have an editable buffer, because they expect me to be multitasking a text
editor in the background!!
Now, I'm not denying the power of the computer, and the power of multitasking
at all. It's wonderful. And when I have 1 meg I'll be living happily – at
1.5 meg I'll be smiling broadly. But, there is another side to it. I think
a 512K Amiga is a significantly less functional computer than an ST at 512K,
and in many ways "practically" less functional too – as in my second
paragraph.