#ESCOM – UUGH!!!
40 messages in this thread
>> Thanks for the clarification.
I don't recall the XT architecture. Was that just an 8088? Why wouldn't these
programs run? Lack of RAM? What were your conclusions on this?
"but many new programs need a lot of memory or Windows in 386-enhanced mode to
run"
Absolutely. So how is the Amiga so superior in this regard? Are you trying to
imply that all Amiga programs will run even if you have limited RAM?
Jerry<<
Jerry, Jerry, JERRY!
That's not what anyone in this thread is saying. They are saying that during
the period of 1987 – 1990 the Amiga computer was the best, easiest to upgrade,
most efficient (required the least resources or RAM to accomplish the same
goals) computer platform available DURING THAT TIME PERIOD! They are also
saying that the PC's and Mac's of that time period could not be upgraded
(easily or cost effectively) to anything close to todays standards of
performance. The Amiga partly because of it's original design and partly
because of third party developers has enjoyed a long and productive life span
because of the availablilty of such upgrades in spite of the lack of commercial
programming. I definately believe that the Amiga was the most advanced
personal computer available for that short period of time. Unfortunately the
Amiga has stood still for the last two and more practically the last five years
and has a lot of work ahead to regain that position (I personally think it will
be a miracle if it ever happens, but still have hopes and will probably buy at
least one more Amiga if and when the 060 tower is reasonably priced). There's
my two cents plus interest so you can now pick apart what I've said with
negative remarks.
David (75714,2776)
Waiting just "two more weeks" <G> for my 060/A4000T
David:
Here's what Ian originally said and what I responded to:
"Unlike any other computer built in 1990, this Amiga is still very usable in
1995."
This statement – taken as it stands – is simply untrue.
If you have examples of a Intel-based PC or Macintosh built in 1990 that is
unusable today because of CPU or Operating System changes, please be kind
enough to identify them.
Jerry
PMFJI
-=> Here's what Ian originally said and what I responded to:
-=> "Unlike any other computer built in 1990, this Amiga is still
very usable in 1995."
-=> This statement – taken as it stands – is simply untrue.
J,
The only way you could possibly believe that is if your 'standards' for a
usable system were/are in the basement. Sure, I have a TRS80 model IV thats
still functional but would I consider it usuable today?
No way not on your life! I would be far better off using a bare bones
Amiga 500 with 512k ram and one internal floppy! I can run the AmiDos 2.04 and
WB with that system. I know others that actually run BBS's with bare bone
A500's (no harddrives) a long with other apps simultaneously.
What it comes down to is the original statement was right on the mark. You
would be hard pressed to find a PC built in 1990 thats worth its weight in lead
and it still is far inferior in every aspect to -ANY- amiga ever built.
Thanks for the overpowering blast of Amiga boosterism – but it really doesn't
go much toward the actual issue, does it?
We use a Macintosh SE/30 (circa 1989) and a Mac IIfx (circa 1990) every day
with off-the-shelf software, much of which is far more powerful than anything
running on the Amiga – and perhaps even unavailable for the Amiga.
Ian's statement really had nothing to do with the feeling of "superiority"
many hold toward the Amiga, but rather with the utility of machines built in
1990.
He said they were unusable today – and there's simply no truth in that
statement, your boosterish comments not withstanding.
Jerry
>>Ian's statement really had nothing to do with the feeling of "superiority"
>>many hold toward the Amiga, but rather with the utility of machines built in
>>1990.
>>He said they were unusable today – and there's simply no truth in that
>>statement
Perhaps since there was a major misunderstanding in what I said and meant, I
should try to clear it up a little. I was primarily talking about PC's.
There is no question that there are highly capable computers built in 1990 or
even before. There are mainframes and supercomputers built in 1985 that make a
Pentium look really sad. So obviously if what I was really trying to say was
that the Amiga was the most capable computer period in 1990 is off base, and
since I said so at about 3 a.m. there's no question my statement was far more
broad than I meant.
By "any other computer built in 1990" I meant the majority of mainstream
computers. A Mac II is a fairly capable computer, I almost went that direction
instead of an Amiga in the first place. But what most people were buying, and
are buying, is PCs. Nowadays stores sell software, and Mac software. They
sell computers, or they sell Macs. "Computer" has become synonomous with a PC
clone. In case you haven't noticed, sorry to say, the Mac is heading out the
door, in about the same way the Amiga was going a few years ago. Just like the
Amiga, some people will never give it up, but just like the Amiga, the PC clone
is killing it. And if you refuse to acknowledge that, its Mac fanaticism,
because the Mac is "goin' down".
Actually there are a few computers from 1990 or before of great interest,
primarily the Mac II (still useful) the Amiga (still useful) and the Atari ST
(makes the Amiga look popular). The PC of 1990 was a joke. And no you can't
do much with anything with a 286 to upgrade to a Pentium except REPLACE the
motherboard.
But it depends on your definition of USABLE and to use the word without
definition was a mistake. I had a TI-99/4A for a long time, and I could still
USE it to word process today. I could use an Altair 4004 instead of my
calculator too.
However, in terms of USING MODERN software, MODERN hardware, the latest
processors ans graphics cards, PCs and all other computers but Macs have been
totally outdated. The Amiga and Mac of 1990 are the only computers that are
usable in terms of using old computers for modern purposes – and very few Macs
sold by 1990 are upgradable to the latest specs, meaning PPC chips. If you
have information to the contrary, then let me know just how many Macs that are
that old can be upgraded to PPC. The Mac II was still fairly new as I recall
at that time, the SE was getting fairly popular. I used to use a SE/30 for my
work – can a SE/30 be upgraded to PPC without replacing the whole guts of the
computer? If so, then I stand corrected. If not, then my statement is
COMPLETELY TRUE AS STATED.
"And if you refuse to acknowledge that, its Mac fanaticism, because the Mac is
"goin' down"."
Heck, Ian, I get a lot of flack for telling the Mac fanatics that their God
is in trouble. (And I own something like a dozen Mac's here. But with Windows
95, Windows NT and the Pentium, ain't no way you're going to find me buying
more overpriced Macintoshes.)
The Mac II was introduced in 1987. the Mac IIx in 1988 and the Mac IIfx in
1990 as well as the IIsi.
Yes, it's true that the only feasible upgrade for a '286 class machine is a
motherboard replacement – but that's pretty cheap compared with Mac upgrades.
Your contentions about "USING MODERN software, MODERN hardware" leave me
puzzled. Much of the "modern" software simply doesn't exist for the Amiga.
There is no counterpart I know of on the Amiga for Excel or Lotus 1-2-3 – and
I'm talking the full feature set here, not just a spreadsheet subset. There is,
as far as I know, no counterpart on the Amiga for Word or WordPerfect,
particularly with their powerful macro or scripting languages.
Likewise, as far as I know, there are no fully featured relational databases
for the Amiga on a par with Access or Paradox. (The Mac is also database
deficient.)
In the graphics area, while there are some truly excellent programs available
for the Amiga, there isn't one equal to Photoshop.
For video, I think the Amiga still has a very slight edge, but it's eroding
very, very quickly.
In terms of processors, there is no accelerator or other solution that will
give the Amiga PowerPC or Pentium capabilities in terms of speed.
Similarly, the Amiga is somewhat crippled in being able to handle large
images in RAM.
So when you say "modern" hardware, the Amiga is getting kind of long in the
tooth – and a lot of "modern" software simply isn't available for the Amiga to
begin with.
"I used to use a SE/30 for my work – can a SE/30 be upgraded to PPC without
replacing the whole guts of the computer? If so, then I stand corrected. If
not, then my statement is COMPLETELY TRUE AS STATED."
It can be upgraded to a 68040, but not a PowerPC. Of course, the SE/30 as it
stands can be used to run all of today's Macintosh applications. So I don't see
how the fact that it can't be upgraded to a PowerPC somehow makes it "unusable"
in any way, shape or form.
The Amiga, by the way, can't at this moment be upgraded to a PowerPC either.
Does that mean – by your very own definition – that it's unusable?
Jerry
a 68060 is comparable to a pentium 90 in speed
so u don't know much about 060's….
"a 68060 is comparable to a pentium 90 in speed
so u don't know much about 060's…."
Do you have some lab results to back up your claims?
I hope so – because not even Motorola makes the claims for the 68060 that you
do.
So far you've been doing nothing but offering totally unsupported claims
without providing the slightest shred of evidence.
Jerry
>>I hope so – because not even Motorola makes the claims for the 68060 that you
do.
Uh, yes they do, because they have demonstrated that the 060 is faster than the
Pentium. So who at Motorola said the Pentium is faster?
>>So far you've been doing nothing but offering totally unsupported claims
without providing the slightest shred of evidence.
Of course you were'nt sending this one to me, but I'll comment on it: So are
you! This thread has become the BS thread because no one is giving EVIDENCE.
The majority of my claims regarding the Amiga's abilities can be demonstrated
simply because you can buy the 060 peripherals I stated, and test it yourself.
I would be certain you've not seen a 68060. An Amiga with an '060 is FAR more
responsive and quick than a Pentium with Windows 95. Part of this may just be
AmigaDOS vs. Windows, rather than processing raw power. But who cares how fast
the processor can theoretically go – what's important is how fast it does what
you want it to. And an Amiga with a 68060 is faster than a Pentium and Windows
– try it yourself and see.
"Uh, yes they do, because they have demonstrated that the 060 is faster than
the Pentium. So who at Motorola said the Pentium is faster?"
You forget to provide the lab reports, reviews or other third party data to
support this claim.
It's kind of meaningless without some third party authority.
"And an Amiga with a 68060 is faster than a Pentium and Windows – try it
yourself and see."
Oh? Since when are the 68060 cards for Amiga's shipping? Please provide
details. I thought they were still on the way.
"This thread has become the BS thread because no one is giving EVIDENCE."
Excuse me, but I have been very careful to provide documented support from
third-party sources for each and every one of my claims.
I'm still waiting to see yours for your all computers made in 1990 are
unusable except for the Amiga claim.
Jerry
the 060s fro the 4000 have been shipping the 2000 and 1200 060's from phase 5
are to come september
Motorola has yet to do mass production of 060's phase 5 gets the ones they
make
gee man read the amigavendor forum more often instead contnuing this flame war
In last December (maybe November) OEM Magazine, there was a two page spread
from Motorola on the 680×0 series. It showed that the 68060 @ 25Mhz was
slightly faster than a P75 at math operations and about on par with standard
instructions. It also showed the future clocked rates of 50 and 80 Mhz would
more than double the performance in most operations of the P75 (no P90
references). Incidentally, they also had an other 2 page spread on the PPC
which illustrated even more impressive figures. Undoubtedly, the PPC is more
powerful and someday, there will be an OS to take advantage of it. The 060
with true backward compatibility however, is ultimately more useful and
powerful for Amiga owners. Of course these are Motorola advertisements… but
any benchmarks that I've seen have been twisted to give either the Intel or one
of the Motorola processors a better light.
-Jonathan
MAC Quadra/486PC compatible courtesy Amiga, Emplant and BB. Emplant beta
tester. Running AP v1.80. E-mail: JonathanB@delrina.com
http://www.delrina.com
Jonahan,
Thanks for the reference. I thought I was the only guy in the world who got
OEM magazine, although I admit to only skimming it.
Out of curiosity, do apps have to be rewritten to optimize the capabilities
of the 68060? Or is it absolutely instruction identical with the 68040?
If not the latter, than my question would be how many developers – of the few
who are left – are going to invest the extra bucks recompiling and perhaps
extensively rewriting their 680×0 code?
Otherwise, you have the same situation as you do with the Pentium: increased
operating speeds, but not really realizing the potential of the CPU.
"Undoubtedly, the PPC is more powerful and someday, there will be an OS to take
advantage of it."
Well, it sure as hell isn't Macintosh System 7.5 which does nothing to
exploit the inherent capabilities of the PPC – and IBM may never release its
OS/2 port for the PPC.
While all my back issues of OEM have long since been consigned to the trash
heap, I will try to remember to look at the next one for a Motorola 68060 ad.
Jerry
the 060 is 040 compatible, and apps would even go faster when optimised for 060
the cyberstorm 060 is 4x faster than a base 4000 040
36x faster than a base 1200
I have a freebie subscription to OEM magazine.
The 68060 will run identically to the 040, and is about 2-3x as fast. If
written specifically for the 060, I have heard that speed can increase another
3-5x fold on top of the 2-3x increase. The question is, will there be software
rewritten? Who knows.
-Jonathan
MAC Quadra/486PC compatible courtesy Amiga, Emplant and BB. Emplant beta
tester. Running AP v1.80. E-mail: JonathanB@delrina.com
http://www.delrina.com
Jonathan:
The closest to a benchmark that we have here is VistaPro. We have a
version which has been compiled for the Pentium, for the PowerPC and for the
68040 (we don't have a 68060 to try it on yet). The PowerPC is slightly faster
than the Pentium for the same clock speed, and a Pentium/90 renders 10 times
faster than a 68040/25. Reports on the 060 that I've seen are that it runs
about twice as fast as an 040 at the same clock speed, which would make a
68060/50 about 2.5x slower than a Pentium/90.
VistaPro makes a good benchmark as the rendering engine is in C and is
identical for all three platforms. Unless the 060 is a lot faster than initial
reports have it being, it's not really in the same class as the Pentium or
PowerPC.
There is an interesting set of comparisons in the July Video Toaster User,
comparing an Amiga 4000/25 with a Warp/40, a Cyberstorm060 and a Pentium/100
(Windows NT) (as well as other processor/OS combos). The 060 comes out just
slightly faster than the Warp, but 2.77 times slower than the Pentium. I wish
it were otherwise, as I happen to like the 680×0 processor series, but I happen
to own both an Amiga 4000 and a Pentium/90 and the 10x speed difference is
quite real. (Though admittedly, Windows 3.1 on the Pentium is like attaching a
covered wagon to a warp drive. <sigh>)
Clint <Chaocity><VRLI>
Clint,
The SAS/C compiler is TERRIBLE at optimising code, whereas the more mature
Intel based compilers are very good. Software written in native 060 assembly
would perform quite well. Comparison with programs written in C are not fair
because it reflects the capability of the compiler much more than the CPU it
runs on.
-Jonathan
MAC Quadra/486PC compatible courtesy Amiga, Emplant and BB. Emplant beta
tester. Running AP v1.80. E-mail: JonathanB@delrina.com
http://www.delrina.com
well in amiga computing they said it's as fast as a pentum 90
at certain tasks….not at all levels but some,and then it's defenitely faster
than pentium 60's,66's,75's
Incidentally, Harwoods in the UK are advertising a Blizzard 1260 50 MHz 68060
trapdoor board for the A1200 for 599.99 pounds. This achieves 37.4 mips. (I
don't work for either of these companies!)
actually it's 82 mips ,sysinfo was incorrect
>>In terms of processors, there is no accelerator or other solution that will
give the Amiga PowerPC or Pentium capabilities in terms of speed.
That is FALSE. The 68060 is equal in power to a Pentium. The P6 exceeds the
060 but is not release at this time, so does not make a fair comparison. On the
PPC count you are correct. A test performed at a major exposition in Germany
put Lightwave on an A4000 with a 50 MHz 68060, and also on a PC with a 90 MHz
Pentium. The image was rendered twice as fast on the 68060 – and although part
of this is due to how the AmigaOS is a lot more efficient than Windows, the
code for the 68060 was not optimized for the 060 – it was the regular 020
version.
>>The Amiga, by the way, can't at this moment be upgraded to a PowerPC either.
Does that mean – by your very own definition – that it's unusable?
The PPC is the latest processor put in the Mac by Apple, and is found the
latest machines. It is considered "top of the upgrade path" at the moment. The
Amiga's top processor at the moment is the 68060, and even the little A1200
already has a 68060 accelerator available for it. I am quite certain when
Escom decides which RISC processor they wish to use in future Amigas, that I
WILL be able to drop it in my machine, because the documentation for my 3000
(in 1990) said my processor upgrade slot was capable not only of a 680×0
upgrade, but an upgrade to a RISC processor (any that will fit depending on how
you build the card, I suppose).
"That is FALSE. The 68060 is equal in power to a Pentium."
Plese provide references to objective third party reports, preferably those
of independent testing labs, to support your contention.
Advertising claims don't cut it.
"A test performed at a major exposition in Germany put Lightwave on an A4000
with a 50 MHz 68060, and also on a PC with a 90 MHz Pentium."
Has LightWave for the PC been released yet in its production version?
And LightWave is hardly a benchmark program.
You seem inclined to believe spurious advertising claims – I tend to believe
reports of independent testing labs that use a full suite of tests, not just
the speed of video being redrawn which is dependent on many other factors
beyond the CPU.
"I am quite certain when Escom decides which RISC processor they wish to use in
future Amigas, that I WILL be able to drop it in my machine, because the
documentation for my 3000 (in 1990) said my processor upgrade slot was capable
not only of a 680×0 upgrade, but an upgrade to a RISC processor (any that will
fit depending on how you build the card, I suppose)."
Then you may have an advertising fraud claim against Commodore (good luck!).
Just assuming for a moment that this particularly bizarre claim had a shred of
truth to it, don't you think that others would have rushed in to provide a RISC
accelerator for the Amiga?
I think you have a lot of faith in your Amiga, but I don't think you're
particularly well informed about other machines and their capabilities – or the
limitations of your beloved Amiga.
Jerry
Jerry:
The article in Video Toaster User indicates that Lightwave has been
released for the Pentium, however I have not personally seen it for sale
anywhere. The benchmarks were supposedly run with the released version on the
Pentium under Win32 and Windows NT. (July 1995 VTU)
Clint <Chaocity>
Clint:
I haven't been following the progress of LightWave/PC, but if I recall
correctly from the threads in the Amiga Vendor/NewTek section, the final
version still hasn't been released.
Jerry
Jerry:
That's very possible. Often writers try to guess the future as the lead
time on their articles are 3-4 months, and sometimes the future refuses to
co-operate.
Clint <Chaocity>
>> Then you may have an advertising fraud claim against Commodore (good
luck!). Just assuming for a moment that this particularly bizarre claim had a
shred of truth to it, don't you think that others would have rushed in to
provide a RISC accelerator for the Amiga?
PMFJI, but — the 3000 has a processor upgrade socket. It is capable of using
any processor board that someone develops for it. RISC is just another way of
designing a processor architecture. There's your shred of truth.
As far as why no one has developed a RISC accelerator, it's probably because
there are relatively few 3000's in use. There are also few 68040 accelerators
that fit the 3000. There are more for the 1200 – which sold better.
Tony
3000 – 68030, Zorro III and SCSI! BUILT-IN!
actually there was a risc addon for the 2000 for awhile,but very few apps
supported it..it was a video/3d card
>Much of the "modern" software simply doesn't exist for the Amiga.<
ROFL!!!
Well, let me breath… OK. the first raytracing/animation programs for personal
computers were Sculpt3D, Caligary, Real3D, Imagine, VistaPro, and some others
that I am sorry to forget. And this was WELL BEFORE 1990. And we shouldn't
forget the purchase price either.
Later on, Sculpt3D was ported to Mac and Studio3D was released for the PC. And
Imagine was ported to the PC, and so on.
And modern software is always developped in a multitasking environment, with an
efficient use of h/w resources, as it always has been with the Amiga since its
birth. (Preemptive Multitasking and so on). Multifinder was not there in 1985,
(the Mac was b/w only) and Windows was first released, but unusable. It became
usable in 1990, and Sistem7 was released in 1991.
So, what's the modern s/w. A word processor, a spreadsheet?
Don't make me laugh. Can you understand now where our "baseless fanatism" comes
from?
Rafa <Motorola Inside> from Berlin, thanks to AP1.80
>…olive oil is the way to go.<
Modern software includes word processors, spreadsheets and the other
categories you mentioned.
Most computers are purchased for workaday tasks, not 3D modeling or video.
The glories of the pre-1990 days don't count for much when there are few
developers left working on the Amiga.
Jerry
Have a look at FinalCalc, Jerry. I understand that it is beginning to ship
now. Check with SoftWood.
—Betty
Betty:
With Excel on the PC's and Mac's, Final Calc doesn't have a whole lot of
appeal to me. All I use the Amiga for is video.
Jerry
Jerry,
>>Final Calc doesn't have a whole lot of appeal to me. All I use the Amiga for
is video.<<
That's fine, but don't you think you should keep some of your opinions about
the availability of new programs and their quality to yourself if you're not
interested in trying them out?
Marion Deland
CROSSINGS – Newsletter for Amiga/PC/Mac compatibility
What is the point of simply answering about anything else when asked about some
particular subject?
Rafa <Motorola Inside> from Berlin, thanks to AP1.80
>…olive oil is the way to go.<
>let me know just how many Macs that are that old can be upgraded to PPC.<
The ones with NuBus/PDS. But now think about the ORIGINAL prices of the
computers compared as well…
Who wins?
Rafa <Motorola Inside> from Berlin, thanks to AP1.80
>…olive oil is the way to go.<
those apps you run are not that new and probably lack the ability to run new
software while being useable
"those apps you run are not that new and probably lack the ability to run new
software while being useable"
Bad guess – and untrue.
Why do you speculate on the capabilities of machines that you obviously don't
use or know much about?
Jerry
because i used macse/30's and they cant run good softwarenew mac apps are
designed for quadralevel now…
> We use a Macintosh SE/30 (circa 1989) and a Mac IIfx (circa 1990) every day
with off-the-shelf software,<
Good point, Jerry. How much did it cost in 1989? And the fx beast in 1990?
Rafa <Motorola Inside> from Berlin, thanks to AP1.80
>…olive oil is the way to go.<
"Good point, Jerry. How much did it cost in 1989? And the fx beast in 1990?"
Way, way too much in retrospect.
Apple's continued predatory pricing is one reason why we're switching over to
Pentiums running Windows 95 and Windows NT.
There is absolutely no reason to pay those inflated prices that Apple
demands.
Jerry
So I was right <g>
Rafa <Motorola Inside> from Berlin, thanks to AP1.80
>…olive oil is the way to go.<