#Amiga vs IBM & Mac
81 messages in this thread
HI ! I'm a Macinosh AND IBM user who just strolled in. The stuff has me
drooling. Can someone give me an idea of the particular strengths of Amiga
over IBM and MAC ?
Plus, I'd like to get an Amiga setup. What can I get that's a good starter
setup without going bankrupt ?
Oooh… What a question! <grin> You'll probably get lots of response to
this one, but I warn you, we're all going to be biased towards the Amiga in
our comments… <grin>
The Amiga has very nice built in Graphics. It's difficult to place the
Amiga graphics quality because it does things differently than the
competition, but I would rate it slightly better than a VGA, overall.
(There are third party graphics add ons which drive it to significantly
better graphics, but we'll stick to standard Amiga capabilities for this
message…)
The Amiga built in sound quality is superb, outmatching any other micro's
built in sound, and most 3rd party addons for other machines. And you can
easily and inexpensively add MIDI support, so you can hook up other sound
devices (like an MT-32…) with ease.
As far as Video support is concerned, the Amiga is totally unmatched. It
was *designed* for video from the ground up. And with NewTek's Video
Toaster board, you can go where no micro has gone before… 🙂
The Amiga OS supports *real* multitasking, and does it in a fraction of
the memory needed by other systems. It has both a GUI and a command line
interface for the best of both worlds. Support for AREXX allows
applications to talk to each other in various ways. And it's *my* favorite
development environment, and I've used them all… 🙂
Lessee, lots of animation, graphics, sound, presentation, titling, games,
raytracing, and similar arts type applications available. Desktop
Publishing, Word Processing, Spreadsheet, and Database software is also
available, but not as common.
I think the ONLY advantages the other machines really have is a larger
installed base (at least in the USA), and a larger variety of business
software.
Now, as for what to get, to get you started… If you intend to do any
serious expansion in the future of any type, I suggest you go for one of
the A2000 series. Even if you go for the base A2000 and a monitor (which
will run you somewhere around $1500, I think… Maybe less…)
[continued]
> I think the ONLY advantages the other machines really have is a larger >
installed base (at least in the USA), and a larger variety of business >
software.
Steve,
Mac, IBM AND the ST all have a larger music/MIDI software catalog. There
seems to be more (and better) DTP for the Mac and IBM. There is VERY little
in the way of educational software compared with AppleII, IBM, or even C64.
Gosh, the way it looks, DTV is the ONLY area the Amiga currently excells –
well, maybe games 🙂
Regards,
Allen
Allen: There may be, as you say, MORE desktop publishing software available
on other platforms, but Amiga DTP packaging that are top of the line by any
standard are available. Amiga was first personal computer (I believe) that
offered DTP with color output. Professional Page and Pagestream (and
possibly Saxon Publisher, with which I'm less familiar) compare favorably
with the more expensive Adobe, Aldus and Ventura packages on the other
platforms, at lower cost. I know, cuz I've used PCs and Macs and had a
chance to compare.
Ron,
I appreciate your insights! I have not used DTP on any other platform,
but I have seen them demonstrated. Aldus and Adobe looked much more capable
than with I am use to (ProPage). I don't know about you, but I don't have a
need for postscript color output 🙂
Regards,
Allen
Larger music/MIDI catalog? Depends on how you break it up. The Amiga has
far more sound manipulation software, and what MIDI software it has is
comparable to the best of the Mac & IBM stuff. The Amiga is sorely lacking
in some good notation based programs, however, something I would love to
see remedied.
The Amiga has more software in most areas of graphics and animation as
well, not just DTV. And the Amiga software in these areas tends to be
significantly bbetter than the competition at a fraction of the price.
As for educational software, let's be serious: After the first 1000
programs, who's counting? There is so much education software on all
machines, Amiga included, that nobody can even count it, much less make use
of it. It's quality, not quantity, that counts here. (OTOH, I haven't the
faintest idea which machine has the best quality educational software. It's
probably a silly question considering most educational software is written
generically and ported to all kinds of machines…)
Frankly, I feel the Amiga excels in most fields. It's just a matter of
finding the right software, and despite the smaller selection, the amount
of *quality* software is enough to do the job.
–>Steve Bennett
> The Amiga has far more sound manipulatioin software..
What sound? The Amiga's internal – that's nice, but hardly usable for most
pro/am work. I know of only one sample editor (of course there is Synthia).
> and what MIDI software is has is comparable to the best of the Mac & IBM
stuff.
Huh? Just curious (cuz I know you are into music), have you looked at the
packages available on the other platforms? I've had just about every MIDI
sequencer (plus The Copyist Pro) installed on my hard drive (save
Bars&Pipes) and I don't see how you can make a claim like that. Sure they
all do basically the same thing (that is to record MIDI events as data) on
the surface, but there is so much more. I had a chance to use Notator the
other night (on the ST no less). No way can ANY Amiga sequencing package
touch that. Then, there are other types of music software. I challange you
to find me an Amiga program that can analyze even simple four part harmony
(something EVERY freshman music major needs) or how about help write that
next pop hit with a rhyming program. Doing any film work? Nothing on the
Amiga like Cue. Wanna submit scores for publication (something that I am
most interested in). You're gonna be VERY hard pressed to do it with the
Copyist. However, people are using Theme (IBM) and Finale (Mac/IBM) all the
time to do just that.
> As for educational software, let's be serious:… There is so much >
edicational software on all machines, Amiga included, that nobody can >
even count it.
Maybe I should pick up an Amazing computing Amiga catalog. I really have
not seen too many educational packages for the Amiga. As an educator, I get
software catalogs all the time from the educational houses. I don't recall
EVER seeing an Amiga program listed in any of them (I do still see C64
software being offered). I don't think there are [sic] too many to count…
at least not on the Amiga!
> Frankly, I feel the Amiga excels in most fields. It's just a matter of
finding the right software…
[ MORE ]
I admit that I haven't seen Notator, so I don't know how it compares to
that. What is it about Notator that makes it special?
It's really surprising how much stuff is out there (and I believe the
Amazing computing list is highly incomplete, large tho it may be, having
seen some pieces of software which weren't mentioned, but were around for a
long time before…) for the Amiga. There's a lot of things which are only
barely advertised if at all. I thought the education area was pretty dry
on the Amiga until a friend of mine (also an educator) asked me about the
Amiga, showing me a huge catalog of educational software from some company,
with a heading indicating that all the software was available for Apple
II's, C-64s, IBM PCs, Macs, and Amigas. Apparently it was all written in
BASIC and ported easily. Must have been at least 500 titles listed.
–>Steve Bennett
Steve… this is news to me! Would it be possible for you to obtain the
name and address of the company that put out that catalog? I'd love to have
something (ANYTHING) to show the Apple folks in my district (my junior high
just bought a room full of IIgs – sheesh). Again, that's what I am talking
about. Most folks aren't going for the platform as much as for what's
available.
Regards,
Allen
I'll ask my friend if he can get that info for me and get back to you…
–>Steve Bennett
Thank you, I'd appreciate it much!
Regards,
Allen
[ continuation ]
Steve, I feel the Amiga is BETTER than ALL of the rest. My point is (and
has been since late '85) that the Amiga is not getting the support it's
due.
Regards,
Allen
[continued from previous reply]
you will have easy expansion for hard disks, memory, faster processors,
anything. You could probably get an A500 and monitor easily for under
$1000, but the A500 is not quite as expandable.
–>Steve Bennett
Victor;
It is easy to not go bankrupt with the Amiga, or, as an alternative, go
insane with the IBM Pee Cee. The Amiga is the best of both worlds in some
respects, inexpensive software, graphics intensive, multitasking and still
somewhat a hackers paradise. Have fun, go Amiga!
Thought you might like the perspective of another Mac, sometimes IBM user
who now also owns an Amiga. Besides I don't have enough enemies (sure to
change after this). First, I'm happy with my Amiga, which I bought to do
video post production. I initially bought a 2000HD. Thats a 68000 machine
with lots of slots and a hard disk. Within two days I was impatient with
performance compared to my Mac II so I added a 68030 accelerator for
another $2K which gave me very satisfactory improvements. Later I added a
VIdeo Toaster which you can read lots more about in any Amiga or Video
magazine – its a video switcher, special effects generator, 24 bit paint,
3D modeller/renderer for $1.5K.
For video( or multimedia), nothing available for the Mac or the PC comes
close. I figured I could easily spend $10K on Mac add-ons for stuff that
wasn't half as productive.
For other work than video, I cant imagine using an Amiga if you already
have a Mac. The GUI (Graphical User Interface) is very crude, even when
compared to Windows, much less the Mac. I have the impression that "rreal
men" don't use the GUI, prefering CL/I (Command Line Interface). If you
like PC:DOS you'll love CL/I. There is plenty of application software
available, and much of it is very cheap but all that I've seen is
"iconoclastic" – strange and unusual compared to the stuff the whole rest
of the world uses. Some of the reservations I have appear to be ameliorated
by the newest Amiga, the 3000, which has a better GUI and better screen
resolution. Still, however, I would prefer a similarly priced II si unless
I was doing video work.
Bill
Bill,
Actually, after using an Amiga for a while, I find the Mac GUI to be rather
cumbersome in comparison. I also find myself in general preferring Amiga
applications to "the stuff the whole rest of the world uses." If that
makes me a computer 'iconoclast', then so be it. 8) No arguments on
Workbench 2.0 version being a more complete GUI environment, though.
Although currently available only on the A3000, Workbench 2.0 has been
promised for the A2x00 and A500 as well.
David
Comment on the Mac vs. Amiga battle: Reading last MacWorld, I noticed two
mini-reviews for 3D Rendering programs for the Mac. One called 'Ray Dream
Designer' has some pretty neat 3D object placement tools, allows some
textures and image wraps, will do transparency & refraction, will not
anti-alias, NO animation; the other called 'UpFront 3-D' has a single
window, allows freehand sketching, no splines, only one light source, NO
animation, only simple flat-shading (must export to other programs to
render better). You can run down and purchase either for only $895.
Now, both appear to have features that are missing from Amiga 3D software,
but they also appear to lack a phenomenal amount of features that any basic
Amiga rendering software should have. Can you imagine Impulse releasing a
new non-ray-tracing, non-animating, no-brush or image wrap, one light
program for the Amiga? For $895?
(I don't want to rag too hard on the Mac, cause I know that there is a lot
of GOOD rendering software out there, but if these two represent 'ray
tracing for laypeople', (per MacWorld), and they cost $895, boy am I glad I
have an Amiga) –jp–seattle–
Can't (wouldn't) argue issues of personal taste (mine or yours) Bill
Bill,
Agreed that it's senseless to argue issues of personal taste. Of course,
there's nothing wrong with stating differing positions and recognizing that
we all don't have to agree on every item, right? 8)
Although we seem to differ on the Amiga vs. Mac environments, we do share a
similar opinion about the Window's environment. Care to guess which GUI is
going to win out in the end?
David
No – in fact, I was pleased that my expressions of opinion didn't result in
my being roasted
Re Windows – If you realy want to be depressed you ought to get a look at
Bill Gates COMDEX presentation. Microsoft is selling it for $10. In it,
Gates talks about "his" vision for the future of computing. Users of
anything other than a PC will recognize it as a description of their
current systems. Even more revealing, at one point he felt it necessary to
give a baby talk description of "24-bit color" to this audience of
experts!
Bill
Actually, I much prefer the Amiga GUI over the Mac GUI. (And ANYTHING is
better than Windows. Windows is pretty, but useless, IMHO.) The Mac GUI
is a bit cleaner looking, and easier for a complete novice to use, but it's
brain dead when it comes to doing anything useful with it. And the lack of
any command line interface on the Mac only makes it worse, since you simply
*can't* do some things without one. The lack of real multitasking is
another problem, especially from the programmer's point of view because you
have to do some of the most incredible kludges to do certain things.
I could run through dozens and dozens of things the Mac can't do that the
Amiga GUI allows you to do, which make the Amiga GUI better, IMHO. And with
the new operating system (which should hopefully soon be released for the
other machines) the Amiga GUI is much much better than the Mac GUI. (Even
System 7.0 on the Mac doesn't come close, and I've been using that for
months now…)
–>Steve Bennett
Well, at least we agree on Windows.
Out of curiosity, what is it I cant do without a command line interface?
Re multitasking – I knwo my Amiga has it and my Mac doesn't but I'm having
a problem finding a benefit?
Anyway – having choices is what makes it interesting.
Bill
Bill:
When was the last time you had your Mac sending a file to a PS printer,
printing out color bitmapped image to a color printer, downloading messages
from CIS via an automated program (Whap! here on the Amiga), reading
messages online from another service, have another modem calling the local
university to see if any usenet mail is waiting for you, all while you're
looking at bitmapped graphics in a viewer type program all at the SAME
time? This is only one example of a use for true multi-tasking. Some other
people will compile software while doing other things, or raytrace pictures
while doing other things, etc…
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Son of a gun, I guess I do have have multitasking on my Mac. I can
independently spool and background print to both my color and PS printer
while using Navigator (the Mac equivalent of Whap) while doing something
else in the foreground – including real 24 bit color in 1K resolution. I
can also ray trace in the background (Stratovision). Yes I know it "isn't
really multitasking" but I think you'll agree that the perceived results
are the same.
Bill
Heh. The percieved results are NOT really the same, though. Try doing all
of that and insert an unformatted floppy, and watch your system grind to a
screetching halt. (You *might* still have the printing going, but I doubt
the communications will keep going for any length of time (Buffers fill and
that's it) and your raytrace certainly won't keep on going. )
Under 7.0 they'll fix that one, but most modal dialogs will serve the
same purpose… <grin>
–>Steve Bennett
Actually its worse than that, the TP program just goes into hold, timing
out if it goes on to long – Same for the printing. Somehow I still don't
feel deprived – maybe I'm too easy going <grin>. Bill
Bill:
As you said, not real multitasking. Can you go back and forth between the
applications to see how they're doing, or are they background only when
started that way? Also, how much did you HAVE to spend on your Mac to be
able to do that? Multitasking is available to even the $499.00 Amiga 500S
soon to be released!
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Sure I can go back and forth – unless specified otherwise, which I can't
remember ever doing, printing and comm are always background. While
applications (spreads, WP etc) don't "run" unless in the foreground, it is
routine to have several loaded for instant switching, and more importantly,
on the Mac, interchange of data, images etc.
Seems to me that multitasking in the absence of lots of processor cycles
isn't much of a benefit. While I grant you that you need a Mac II (68020)
at least for background to be comfortable, I also found that my stock Amiga
2000 wasn't quick enough to do one thing to my satisfaction, much less
many.
Bill
Mike: With Clipboard and AREXX support in WB 2.0, my view is that Amiga's
"true multitasking" capabilities will become much more apparent as well as
useful. I multitask now, but I'm talking interspecies communication between
programs. Also, given the trend toward cross-OS compatibility, which has
been led by UNIX and, amazingly, the Amiga, these features will, for some
users, become even more important, and more of a distinguishing market
factor. I hope.
Without a command line interface:
– You cannot use filename wildcards to do an operation on many files at
once based on filename. (For example, DELETE #?.obj)
– You cannot instantly change from one directory to another by name. (For
example: CD dh0:entertainment/visual/paint/deluxepaint/brushes. I may know
this entire sequence by heart, using it daily, but on a GUI I'd still have
to open each folder seperately.)
– Scripting is a nightmare if possible at all. And there is not usually
a way to specify parameters to a GUI launched application. (Intuition is
the *only* such GUI to allow this that I'm aware of, and even it has a lot
of trouble…)
– Many common CLI commands are much more difficult to handle under a GUI,
and while possible, often aren't included. Example: TYPE.
Now, as for multitasking, there are many many benefits. Some are not
directly visible to the user, but show themselves in terms of ease of use
and ease of programming. (For example, a screen saver. Trivial as a task
in a multitasking system. A monster to program on much else. I know, I've
written one for the Mac, and need to write one for a PC. I don't even know
if the PC is possible because not all programs there use a GUI. Even the
Amiga CLI programs use the Amiga GUI…)
Other benefits: I am constantly downloading using a terminal program,
while unarching a prior download, doing something with the unarched
download, and have a game running as well. This doesn't count the half
dozen or so background programs I happen to have running at one time or
another. You probably do similar things and thus use multitasking without
even thinking about it.
–>Steve Bennett
Good CLI examples I must admit… Particularly the directory reorg. While I
hate what I have to do under MS/DOS with no GUI, I must admit there are
things I spend more time doing with no command line, in that regard.
Quickkeys gets me around some of the other problems, like instantaneous
launch etc, but I certainly agree that scripting/macros are much more
difficult an unreliable where only a GUI is available.
I guess one of my problems is being forced by my Amiga to use CL/I when I
haven't taken the time to feel comfortable with it. In the best of all
worlds, both the GUI and the command line interfaces would be as all
encompasing as their respective paradigms permit. On the Amiga, I get the
feeling that the GUI is sometimes ignorred, sometimes an afterthought. I
find it akward that some programs are invisible to the GUI (I don't mind
having that choice, mind you, but in this case its not my choice)
Similarly, when I'm looking at a directory in text, all those icon files
are an annoyance. (Some people are never satisfied !)
I'm less convinced about multitaskings benefits – Things that I want to
happen while I'm doing other stuff – printing, communications,ray trace –
do so on my mac even though I know it ain't really multitasking. I can see
the benfit to the programmming example you site but from a users point of
view, I'm less convinced.
Bill Dwyer
Under 2.0 you'll find that you can do a lot more with the CLI than before.
It's pretty nice.
–>Steve Bennett
2.0 and the press of other business (mostly on the Mac) has been my main
excuse for not really learning the current interfaces. Someday… Bill
>Without a command line interface:
> – You cannot use filename wildcards to do an operation on many files
>at once based on filename. (For example, DELETE #?.obj)
I can with DiskMaster!
>(For example, a screen saver. … A monster to program on much else. I
>know, I've written one for the Mac, and need to write one for a PC. I
>don't even know if the PC is possible ….
I beleive there are PD screensavers out there for the PC. Probably on
PC-SIG.
. . . . . JimDoc <<via WHAP!>>
I should have clarified that somewhat. By screen saver I don't refer to
the old fashioned screen blanker, but rather something which comes up and
does neat things with the screen. (After Dark for the Mac or PC is a good
example…)
Under a multitasking & windowing system, it is a fairly trivial task to
do this. Under a non-multitasking system, it's still possible, but a lot
more difficult, and on a non-windowing system like DOS, it's nearly
impossible.
As for using Diskmaster and wildcards: That's fine, but you've moved away
from the "pure" GUI in that case. You're actually resorting to *typing* a
filename. (Shudder… 🙂 And it's probably still faster for an
experienced person to do it with CLI commands.
Also, will Diskmaster allow you to send such wildcards to ANY program?
Can I, for example, run my GIF display program HAMGIF passing it #?.gif
using it? I'm not too familiar with Diskmaster having experimented with
such programs ages ago and giving up on them as too slow and cumbersome.
–>Steve Bennett
> As for using Diskmaster and wildcards: That's fine, but you've moved
> away from the "pure" GUI in that case. You're actually resorting to
> *typing* a filename. (Shudder… 🙂 And it's probably still faster
> for an experienced person to do it with CLI commands.
> Also, will Diskmaster allow you to send such wildcards to ANY
> program? Can I, for example, run my GIF display program HAMGIF passing
> it #?.gif using it?
Steve –
I'm not sure how this thread started, but to me one of the greatest
features of the Amiga is its ability to utilize BOTH CLI and GUI, in some
things interchangably. DiskMaster is, in a sense, an embodiment of this —
partly QUI, partly CLI.
You CAN do the HAMGIF sort of thing with it, but somewhat clumsily. First
a "Command Button" is set up for "HAMGIF <options> %s", then the menu
option "Pattern" is set to "*.GIF". If you then click on "ALL", you get
every "*.GIF" in whatever directory you're in, then click on the "HAMGIF"
command button you set up, and it will process all of them.
It really isn't as clumsy as it sounds, and is probably faster IF you've
got more than a couple to do. OTOH, some of this can be sort-of automated
using Khalid's smart file requester.
Personally, I tend to use DiskMaster in a fashion more or less similar to
using XTree on the PeeCee.
. . . . . JimDoc <<via WHAP!>>
When using the Amiga at work I was "kind of impressed" only until I
discovered that the command-line could not be avoided by a power user.
That effectively nuked the Amiga for me the same way it nuked MS-DOS and
UNIX.
Steve, some of us just CANNOT use a CLI. It is predicated on the
user having certain ROMs on his motherboard. You must type well and fast
(I do) and without errors (I DO NOT) or at least be able to _learn_ to type
without errors through necessity (I had 5 years, pre-Mac, and never had
anything but constant frustration). You must also have good short-term RAM,
in that you must be able to remember path names letter-perfect. So easy
for you! So easy for some people. Absolutely, totally foreign to others.
To me! Path names are sheer hell to someone without short-term memory. If
I couldn't click folders from inside my terminal programs, I'd never
remember the name of most of my applications, much less their version
numbers. In my years on my Mac I have had to type path names twice. I
couldn't do it the first time; I had to go out and check. And I use those
folders every day. Which brings me back to your point about your personal
path name. You type that every day with no errors? I'd just open windows.
Or I'd just leave them open on the desktop, there for all to see when I
boot up.
Of course, I am perhaps the perfect GUI user. I never script. I
never have, even on MS-DOS or UNIX. I doubt I ever will. In the time it
took Derek at work to write the script, I had usually deleted everything by
hand, and that was with me typing at a CLI! Or the time Derek (our CLI
maven at work) helped my brother write a script to crank graphs out of data
using Quattro Pro – more than a thousand graphs in all. It took … a week
and a half. Always something else wrong. Always one more comma. At last
it was done. A whole tree's worth of printer paper had been wasted in
testing, but now it worked … and Derek turned to my brother and said,
without a trace of sarcasm, "Isn't it wonderful to have the computer do the
work for you?" 🙂 🙂 🙂
Don.
You should be happy with 2.0 then… You can do most things from the GUI
there that you couldn't before.
Me, it drives me crazy *not* to be able to script things. No, I don't
usually type those long pathnames: Normally I have a script to do ASSIGNs
to the most common pathnames, and often I use scripts to both change
directories at the same time I set up the environment for something.
One of my favorites is writing scripts which I then tie to an Icon using
ICONX. That way I can stay in the GUI while setting environments and the
like and is *very* nice. For example, just last week I made up a script
for starting Wizardry: Bane of the Cosmic Forge (a game I've started
playing…) which takes the existing saved game, backs it up (so I'm always
able to return to the start of the day in case I goof later), makes an
ASSIGN so that it can find the savegame directory and starts up the game.
Tied it to one of my "execute me!" icons (an icon specifically designed to
run a script through ICONX) and now all I need to do all that is click on
the one Icon. Scripts don't have to be at all complex to be extremely
useful.
I always recommend to any Amiga user to become familiard with, if not
comfortable with, the CLI interface because it really can make things
easier and faster in a lot of ways. Even if you think CLIs are the nearest
thing to hell you'd be surprised at how useful you might find it. And I
believe ANYONE can learn to use one. Here at my company we use UNIX and
UNIX like operating systems for ALL administrative work. If we can do that
and have a new secretary who's never touched a computer in her life up and
productive in a week (and typically less…) then I can't see why ANYONE
would have any long trouble learning a CLI.
–>Steve Bennett
I computerized our whole accounting system in the summer of '87. I will
always remember with especial fondness the demonstration I gave of the new
timesheets. The entire staff, secretarial and otherwise, gathered round and
watched me open one of the new sheets. "Now…" I said, and was instantly
interrupted by the accounts manager, a very bright woman: "How did you
bring it up?" I actually assumed she was asking me for the benefit of the
new employees. "Well," I said, you type "ss" and then type your name."
She bent over her notebook and wrote, upside down from my view, "S.S. YOUR
NAME." Then she looked up and inquired, "Why?"
I am told that after I started going to college, the new version of
the operating system our mini uses arrived and forced them to abandon the
sort-ofgraphics "Shell" they had used previously. I am assured,
furthermore, that – not without a great deal of heartbreak – the entire
staff was taught the joys of CLI, and can now use it in a rudimentary way
to run spreadsheets and the like. The mind boggles.
The scripting you refer to sounds fascinating. If there were an
educational purchase plan for the Amiga I would tell my brother to buy one
(he's thinking of getting one before leaving school). Unfortunately,
that's partly my fault. The department I used to work for here at school is
in charge of new computing tech (AdTech) and had me write a detailed
evaluation of "X-windows" for the Amiga. I had never seen an Amiga before,
but I guess I got the worst possible intro; the screen was huge, but it was
washed-out greyscale, making it impossible to figure out the GUI and
removing the color; the GUI bore *no* resemblance to the CLI, which lacked
any user manuals save a Quick-Reference Card, and the Ethernet cable was so
huge that it had to be forced against the wall or it would drag itself out
of its socket (that stalled us for two days; none of us thought to check
back there). To top it off, the X-windows I tested stank. [continued in
reply]
At least, the version I had stank.
After a week of frustration, I turned in my report. My boss,
already no fan of the Amiga, pulled a phrase from my report and actually
put it on a circulating menu: "The Amiga's interface resembles that of the
Macintosh, with all the intelligence subtracted."
Need I bother adding that one cannot purchase an Amiga through the
school now, despite the fact that my supervisor (below my boss) thinks
Amigas are just great? I felt kind of bad about that, but not until a year
later, when I read about the Amiga a little. But it's a little late.
Don. 🙁
I like your observations! "Using a CLI requires certain ROMs on your
motherboard" is absolutely true. Even using a GUI requires a certain level
of abstraction and experience. I gave one of my old A1000s to my
grandparents. To their virgin eyes, even distinguishing that an icon was
an icon and a window was a window was a difficult task. Using the mouse
was difficult for my grandfather, who expected it to be an absolute device,
instead of one that used relative motions. He'd shove the mouse to the
edge of the mousepad, then lift the mouse into the air, move the mousepad
over a few inches on the table, set the mouse down again, and move the
mouse a little further to the (absolute) right.
There's something to be said for the Mac… its absence of a CLI has
forced developers to really, really use their own products, without
resorting to the magic that CLI people use. The Amiga is still earth-bound
with startup-sequence scripts, magic ASSIGNs that must be entered by hand,
etc. Amiga user interfaces tend to be much more cluttered and less
elegant-appearing than the Mac. This is a nerd machine, no doubt.
I dunno. I worry about the Mac. By giving people an "easy to use"
interface like the Mac GUI you tend to end up with a lot of people who are
using a computer without learning anything about how a computer really
works. This is fine on one side since it makes it faster for people to get
started, but it's also resulting in a lot of people who couldn't handle
some of the more trivial computer problems which come up.
A GUI is nice, and makes things easier, yes, but it's hardly necessary to
have one to use a machine. The vast majority of computer users have
actually never yet used a GUI and have gotten along just fine. And I
would, in general, feel better trusting one of those people to fix a
computer problem than one who has never touched a command line interface.
As a parallel, it's like learning Long Division. Why learn long division
when you have a calculator which can do it for you? Or perhaps more
ominously, why learn to *read* when you have a TV to tell you the news and
entertain you and tell you everything you need to know? It really does
worry me that the concept of "computer literacy" nowadays is limited to
being able to point and click with a GUI. Something to think about.
–>Steve Bennett
I'd feel much better if people were learning how to drive, as opposed to
simply learning how a car works, or how a combustion engine works. Dinking
in MS-DOS's or AmigaDOS's CLI doesn't teach me how a computer works. This
reminds me of an ad I saw a few months back… it showed an electric chair,
and it said something like "We don't want to kill the creator of DOS… we
just want to ask him a few questions." And the ad was full of questions
like, "Do you name everything with only 13 characters" and "Did you want
DOS to be that way, or did you just run out of time?" and "How often do you
see 'Unrecognized command'"?
Perhaps I've phrased that wrong. Instead of saying I want people to learn
how a computer works, I want them to learn how to get the same things (and
other things) done the "manual" way instead of the "automatic". Using your
car analogy, I *do* feel that people should learn how to use an manual
transmission in the off chance that they are ever needed to drive a car
with one.
Using a slightly different analogy, and looking into the future…
Eventually we'll have cars which you can program to get from point A to
point B. I'd still want people using those cars to learn how to drive them
in case of problems. (Like what happens if the car doesn't know where
point A or B is, or what if you're not sure where point B is?)
Dinking around in MS DOS or the AmigaDOS's CLI may not teach you more
about how the computer works but it *should* teach you faster and possibly
easier ways of getting certain things accomplished. Sure it's a bit of a
challenge learning it at first, but once you have, you'll get a lot more
performance out of your machine.
–>Steve Bennett
Re: manual transmission: I fully agree.
Don.
BTW, I really despise "cars are to X as computer-thing-Z is to Y" type
analogies. Cars aren't computers, and any similarities are a coincidence,
not evidence of Mac vs. IBM superiority. 🙂
No, no, no! For Joe and Jane Computer User, the "home computer" types the
industry would love to see, the casual office user of a computer, no, they
should not learn "manual mode", aka some gawd-forsaken
command-line-interface from the Dark Ages of computing! Teach them about
the trash can icon. They can probably handle that. They can't handle
directories, the 'cd' command, hierarchical directory structure, attribute
bits, wildcards and three dozen other programmer-isms that have nothing to
do with *getting a job done by computer*.
All right! Who did that ad? And what, exactly, was it advertising…?
Don.
Those are really good points … but I think you carry the analogy too far.
I think that, if you become enamored with a system, FOR WHATEVER REASON,
you will become more of a "power user" in it. In the two years I've had
this Mac I've learned more about how computers work – all computers – than
I learned in all the years previous. When I was on MS-DOS and UNIX I
stayed logged on as little as I could. With my Mac, it was the other way
round.
It's all a matter of visualiztion, I think. Some people find it
easy to "internalize" their environments, i.e. their file structure,
directories, etc.. Some don't. I don't. It always hurt my brain to try to
visualize the Banyan tree that was my UNIX login. On the Mac, I don't have
to. I can see it. I can see it! When I need to access a file I can step
my way there, instead of having to know its exact location! How I got by
in UNIX and MS-DOS, I have no idea. As I recall, it involved a lot of
scribbed notes.
I would also mention this; If I pulled a Macintosh System, plain
and simple, out of the box, stuck it on my machine, and turned it on, I
wouldn't care much for it at all, now. But because I like the interface,
I've seen fit to ruthlessly customize it. And now I am a power user (by
some standards). Steve, I'll bet if you sat down to a virgin OS, you would
find yourself handicapped in your work. But you're not. You've written
scripts, created files, installed utilities, and done a thousand other
little things to make your workplace work for you. I think that will
happen on any system. But you shouldn't judge a bare Macintosh against
your system. Judge it against a bare Amiga system. Or judge mine against
yours.
Don.
Don – I just had to jump in and say that your remark about judging "bare"
systems is right on the mark… something I've pointed out for years.
Most, if not all, computers come out of the box as almost useless… at
least as far as power users go. We all quickly get reliant upon screen
snappers, GIF viewers, comm programs, little utilities of all sorts…
without which we'd be frustrated people ;-).
I sometimes wonder what life must be like for those without access to clubs
or networks… it's no wonder so many home computer users give up! But I'm
wandering.
Yes, it's ridiculous to compare customized systems to stock systems. You
often see people say "well, I tried brand XX at a store, but it wasn't near
as powerful as MY system". Well heck, of course not! cheers – kev
I'll never forget my first exposure to the Amiga. My A1000 arrived,
without any disks. I knew there was another A1000 at a local dealership,
so I went there. Of course, they were in the same boat – they had disks,
but no manuals. I'm rather computer-literate. I thought I'd be able to
figure out how to copy disks. Nope. Even to a 1985-era computer whiz kid,
the Amiga was opaque. The Amiga has more little hacks like that… the
multitasking encourages it. At least on the PC, we'd see conflicts between
TSRs, and people would keep their hacks to a minimum. 🙂 Or DA conflicts
ala the Mac. But no!!! I've seen impossible-to-use Amiga setups, because
these people installed every goofy hack from here to West Germany, screen
blankers, mouse movers, quick menu this and activate window that. Sheesh.
Actually, I don't judge a bare Mac against my Amiga. I judge my highly
customized Mac at work (which I happen to be typing this on right now)
against my even more customized IBM PC on the next table and my generally
customized Amiga at home. All three represent years of work to get things
more or less comfortable.
But when it comes to deciding which I prefer, well… I may have to
*work* on an IBM PC and a Mac, but I come home to my Amiga. <grin>
–>Steve Bennett
Don:
I think a persons preference of GUI or CLI is also based in some way on
how a persons brain functions. As an example, I have a friend that is very
musically oriented. He can remember almost any tune, and if you play a
single note for him, he can tell you what it is. I on the other hand can
remember the words in songs much better than I can the music. The same is
true of other things. This same friend has little word-game type things he
uses to help him remember phone numbers, I use the patterns the numbers
make on the touch-tone pad, both equally good ways to remember something,
but different. I find that if I'm not real sure of where something is I
like to step through the windows, but if I'm SURE of where something is I
don't like HAVING to.
On the Amiga, you CAN have your cake and eat it too. As an example, if
for instance I wanted to switch to the directory that holds some scanned
images of my girlfriend, I could either step through the menus, or manually
type:
or by using a file requestor/injector I could enter:
cd (120M):Graphics/Nudes/Vicki/
(in the above example the only manually typed part was the CD command.)
So, it's real easy to switch to a directory (or drawer) if you CAN remember
what it's called, but it's also EASY to find the same file if you can't
remember it's name.
Another thing is that as you mentioned, If you're a power user of a
particular system, that things will be easier for you on that system than
another (unless you're a power user on a few different systems). I'm sure
that if I sat down at your system, and you at mine that we'd both be lost
for a while.
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Boy I'll say … whenever someone sees my Mac he says, "Is that a Mac?"
Even if he owns a Mac himself, he asks that … I've done some weird stuff
to it.
And when I used the Amiga at work, I was utterly lost at first,
then slowly figured out the GUI. The GUI. Despite days of fiddling I
never understood the CLI well enough to be able to get Xwindows up and
running without help. (Note: there were configuration difficulties …
possibly that's not a good example.)
About the brain functions: I'm certain you're right. Example; I
cannot put names to faces at all, and can't really distinguish faces until
I've known someone a month or more (truth!! it's caused nasty problems).
But after that, I can recognize someone just by the way they _breathe_, or
their stride out in the hall.
Also, I can remember events – like history, jokes, anecdotes –
incredibly well (if I DO say so myself), but as for the names in those
events, forget it. This is just the worst. Imagine having a million
anecdotes to tell, but not doing it because people assume you're inventing
it if you can't remember names and places… Sometimes I bring my sources
just to try to keep my credibility up.
So you're right about the brain. Just too bad we can't upgrade our
own system software, huh?
Don.
That's a much better way of putting it … I forgot that I once said
something along those lines. The CLI is wonderful for most programmers,
but it's what separates (more than the GUI, you'll have to admit) many
potential users from computers.
When you have a CLI, as I remarked to Debbie (my supervisor), the
temptation is just too great to use it as the "easy way out." Easy, that
is, for the developer; hard as sHell 😉 for many users. It's just too easy
to have the does (I mean, docs) say, "now exit to shell and edit the
CONFIG.LEAF file to ensure the Boot Blocks are shod correctly. And don't
forget to zap the EPRAMS and also ensure that the MultiSpeke Module is
configured correctly for NewSpeak Mode." On the Mac, you can't get away
with that. The most you can do is tell the user to drag something into his
system folder and make sure MultiFinder is turned on. (Admittedly, there
are some users that would confuse. But they wouldn't be any better off
with an Amiga. And an IBM? <giggle giggle>
Don.
I have a good friend who does MS-DOS and Windows programming during the
day, who owned an Amiga for many years, and who recently bought a
Macintosh. I agree with his opinion – it's much easier to get things done
when you use the Mac. It takes less thought to run it, when you're in a
hurry and are jumping between programs to get a job done. It's a great
tool for that. It's not a good tool for other things. As they say, "a
dime's still a screwdriver." Bad documentation hurts any computer, of
course.
"A dime's still a screwdriver"??? "Eschew obfuscatory aphorisms" … ::))
Don.
Don:
The CLI isn't always needed, as there are MANY applications that allow
you to do anything you'd do in the CLI from within these programs.
DiskMaster is one of them. Also, even if you are absolutely FORCED to use
to use the CLI there are even programs that help with that Khalid
Aldosori's File Requestor and it's Bypass program allow you to call up a
file requestor (dialog box) to select the file with, and then with another
hot-key you can inject either the filename, or the full path, or both
wherever the cursor is. Workbench 2.0 makes the GUI even more functional
than the current 1.3.
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Is Workbench 2.0 out? Or is it another Vaporware 7.0, like the one on the
Mac? (Which is now supposed to come out on May 13th, at some Expo or
other…)
Don.
Workbench 2.0 has been shipping with the A3000 since it's release. The ROM
version of Workbench 2.0 will hopefully appear soon, but Commodore seems to
be very cautious about making sure it gets out as bug free as possible.
–>Steve Bennett
As bug-free as possible … yuss, that seems to be what Apple is doing with
The Amazing Puff of Vapor v7.0. Although I hear it's not all it's cracked
up to be.
Don.
Apple isn't taking *nearly* as much pains with 7.0 as Commodore is with
2.0. 2.0 was in the stage in which 7.0 *will* be later this week (second
major beta sites…) about a year ago. Apple, on the other hand, plans to
go from that to release in two months. <grin>
And they will, no doubt! Of course, shortly thereafter, Apple will
release 7.0.1 and 7.0.2 and 7.0.3 and 7.0.4, finally stabilizing at around
7.0.6 about a year from now if all their past major system releases are any
indication… 🙂
–>Steve Bennett
Don:
No Workbench 2.0 isn't vaporware, it's real, It's available right now
(although in a pre-release form) on the Amiga 3000 as well as to Certified
Developers. The reason for the delays on the official release is so that C=
can get rid of ALL bugs in the OS. I don't know about you, but I'd rather
wait for the OS to be released, and have it virtually bug free, rather than
have it released now with some bugs in it.
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Yeah, but that's what they're doing with System 7.0 for the Mac, and
that'll still be so buggy it'll have to be fumigated … at least, I assume
it will be. Perhaps they'll score another
everybody-hates-it-except-the-marketplace coup like with the Classic … I
wish. :-|)
Don.
But Macs _do_ have multitasking. "Running in background," don't y'know.
What they don't have is "pre-emptive" multitasking. "Pre-emptive"
multitasking makes things much easier for programmers, but I have actually
found (on the UNIX machines at work) that it actually has some
disadvantages for me on the user side… but not usually.
Don.
Steve,
You have been using System 7.0 on the Mac? Are you a Mac developer?
Regards,
Allen
I'm a Mac developer, a PC developer, a UNIX developer, and I come home to
my Amiga, so I personally became an Amiga developer. I've been programming
for a dozen or so years, so really can't say I know it all, but I have come
close. <grin> System 7.0 looks pretty, and simplifies some things, but
makes other things (formerly simple) harder. There are a couple of neat
things (From the user point of view, once applications support them. From
the programmer point of view, they're a nightmare… <grin>) as well as
some very necessary things (inter-application communications, for
example…) but it still doesn't solve the two things I feel the Mac
*really* needs the most: Real multitasking, and a CLI. Until then, I
expect the Mac will remain as it has always been: Novice friendly,
Experienced User Hostile.
–>Steve Bennett
OK.. sounds like you know! 🙂 Have any idea when System 7.0 will be
released?
Regards,
Allen
Rumor has it around May. But truthfully I haven't any real idea.
–>Steve Bennett
Bill: I, too, use MS-DOS and Macintosh stuff (as well as CP/M!) and highly
regard my Amiga. I have a plain ol' 68000-equipped A500 with 5 megs RAM and
it does nearly everything I want. My familiarity with Macs came away from
home and I added the AMAX II Macintosh emulator to my 500. Now (except for
color), my 500 does everything Mac-ish that I care to use. I still use
MS-DOS machines a lot for text-based work and number-crunching, but am
methodically moving much of that work to the Amiga. I use both the command
line interface and the Workbench. I too think WB could be improved, and WB
Version 2.0 looks very clean. In all, the Amiga is the most computer for
the money I've ever purchased, and that includes a lot of computers. The
Mac and PCs still do some things better, but in terms of overall
costs-benefits, certain areas like DTP and DTV (or multimedia, if you
prefer), and in terms of sheer fun, the Amiga can't be beat, in my
estimation.
Re: most for money – no argument. Particularly in the area of software and
unique hardware add-ons, the values are very strongly on the Amiga side.
Bill
It sounds good to me Bill. But what your talking about must be a $6,000
setup. Unless one falls of a truck and into my livingroom there's no way I
can swing that right now.
Re:$6000 … at least. On the other hand, I've met lots of "serious" video
guys, who work with a very inexpensive 500. Meanwhile, good luck on the
truck-drop! Bill
Vic,
I'm a PC and Amiga owner; my brother owns a Mac. So we have some common
ground.
What kinds of specific applications do you have in mind? Your answer will
make it easier to respond… (I work in video and television, myself)…
Pete
Well…my mac takes care of my desktop publishing needs and the IBM takes
care of labels, spreadsheets and games. But I'd like to try some animation
and see what can be done with video, not necessarily for money, but just
out of curisity. Plus, the amiga games look awesome. I'm really interested
in hypermedia right no–combining text and photos. Being a newspaperman I'd
like to see if I could produce one online, just out of curiosity–BECAUSE
IT'S THERE ! <grin>
–Victor
Victor:
Actually, the best way to answer that question is to _SHOW_ you.
Where are you located? Maybe one of us is near you.
In my case, I have an Amiga at home (Brooklyn, NY), and one at work (lower
Manhattan). If you're in my area, I'd be happy to demonstrate the
differences. Especially at work, since my machine at work has an MSDOS AT
Bridgeborad in it, so it can simultaneously run Amiga and MSDOS software,
and also has a device called AMAX, which permits it to actually become a
MAC (however that takes over the machine, so I can't be a MAC and an Amiga
simultaneously).
If you aren't where one of us can show you the difference, we'll be happy
to talk about it at length.
This is without question the MOST fun you can have with an affordable
desktop computer, and also, IMHO, the most PRODUCTIVE computer I have used.
?|^] Ray Lewis
Ray,
I second your statement on the Amgia being the most productive computer I
have ever used. It's one of the things that's always impressed me about
the machine. I've often wondered why this aspect hasn't aroused great
interest in the Amiga just by itself.
David
Ray,
I'm in Columbus now. I just moved from the Bronx though and will be back in
the city for my sster' wedding March1-3. FRiday night or Saturday is a
possibility or Sunday morning. Sunday morning is best. But I don't know
about coming out to Brooklyn from the Bronx, you guys in Brooklyn are crazy
<grin>.
Victor,
Assuming you meant Columbus OHIO in your message to Ray Lewis, have you
looked up AmiCON, the very good users group there? It's good enough, I
commute from Dayton once a month!
Karl
>>_SHOW_ you.
Good idea. I heard of a car dealership that had one of his competiter cars
in the showroom next to their own. This way people could make comparisons
right then and there. The person who told me about this way very
impressed. I don't see why a dealer can't set a Mac, IBM & Amiga side by
side with a price list (retail for best comparison) and some software. It
may cost a few bucks but it would be cheaper than buying a car! <g>
Victor: I'm a big MS-DOS user who also is familiar with Mac and who
absolutely LOVES the Amiga, the latest of the three to come to my
attention. So much in love that I bought a Bridgeboard and an AMAX II box,
so that my Amiga can run MS-DOS in a multi-tasking window or emulate
(actually, outperform) a Mac Plus. get one. Productivity aside, the Amiga
is just plain fun. You can get a 1 meg A500 with two floppies and a color
analog monitor with stereo speakers for under a grand.