This version is merely a slight reformatting of the collected emails, with all the email-admin garbage removed and with the subject of discussion highlighted. I have employed global-editting techniques, so might have missed some things, and also have probably horribly messed up the format in some places. It also still holds lots of irrelevant writing, e.g. where the statement of difference was merely a single paragraph in a long email. Also, you will find repetition since some of the statements were made as a result of an onguoing discussion in which earlier stuff was repeated. Also, the '>' at the start of lines I have tried to replace with ':-' but not all were. Also, you will find they have not stayed at the start of the line.
Sorry about the present mess. I intend to go through this lot and tidy it up, remove irrelevant and duplicated stuff, and to re-order it and index it according to topic. But, for now, I hope you find it of interest.
Andrew Basden.
On Mon, 16 Jun 97 10:51:31 GMT Andrew Basden wrote the following:
:-No, not right. There is a growing dissatisfaction with (even the start :-of a backlash against) cludge-filled W95 and NT. When introduced to a new :-concept like MM-home-computing-with-Encarta the users do not at first :-know what is good and what is cludgey. But they are becoming more :-aware.
And if you're just going to try and copy Windows 95, why even bother? I keep seeing Amiga programmers trying to create software that basically tries to emulate the designs of equivalent Windows software (excellent case in point: web browsers), and I just have to ask why? The only real raison d'etre for the Amiga is to be different, and better. This is not what we're seeing though, and IMHO will be the cause of the ultimate demise of the Amiga, unless things change.
From: Andrew Basden
:->If a cludge is going to be the result in the mean time then so be
it, we :->programmers may not like the idea of out beautiful clean
AmigaOS :->becoming a cludge but what matters is what do the users
think. The :->market has spoken and it appears that cludges do
remarkably well, just :->look at the king of cludges - Windows 95. :-
:- Right.
:-No, not right. There is a growing dissatisfaction with (even the
start :-of a backlash against) cludge-filled W95 and NT. When
introduced to a new :-concept like MM-home-computing-with-Encarta the
users do not at first :-know what is good and what is cludgey. But
they are becoming more :-aware.
MS stuff is cludgy (can you have an adjective of a made up word 8-))
because MS has no overall architectural model to follow, no simple
set of guidelines that define the "commandments" for how everything
else will work and describe itself (NT4 is much better but now they
are scared to change it and risk the wrath of their customers).
To add such things to the Amiga would be unnacceptable to me if they
were to become part of the OS of the future. If however, as has been
discussed, we go down a dual path of developing a new Open Amiga
operating SYStem (OASYS) firmly based upon the principles of the old
OS with new ones added then I see no problem in adding a few cludges
to the old codebase to parallel what will exist on the new system IF
IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the OASYS codebase will completely replace the
old codebase + cludges when it is ready and that new development
written for it will run properly on the new system (part of the great
migration plan).
:-Probably the major strength that AmigaOS has is its excellent and
elegant :-internal design. This easily and naturally leads to several
real benefits: :-# Flexibility, # Robustness, # Expandability, #
Longevity, # Usability (real multi-tasking) :-(Not a definitive list)
and these will increasingly be valued by the users - :-if marketed as
such. :- :-*** This means that now is NOT the time to be following the
bad :-route that WIndows has taken. But to capitalise on our
strengths.***
Amen to that - The Amiga has always driven by a philosophy,
excellence through simplicity - now is not the time to abandon it. I
think a lot of the uncertainty at the moment is due to many ppl
reassessing what the Amiga means to them - should it bcome more
mainstream and sacrifice "purity"? Should it stay more independent,
retain purity and always have a smaller market? Does purity have to be
sacrificed to achieve mainstream and bigger markets? Is there a
sustainable market for independent computing where the OS and apps can
be driven forwards without worrying unduly about the market wanting to
hold them back? I am sure we all have our own opinions abou this -
what we have to strive for is a consensus and a plan. Hopefully, if
GW/AI work with the IC then we will have a plan - once we move on
from the maybes and whatabouts and ifs to whens, whos and whats,
starting the ship up again then a lot of this will go away.
:-And I wish for the I.C. to take a strong lead in this direction.
That's what it's supposed to be there for 8-)
:- :-But the essential foundational design of AmigaOS allows us to
improve :-by elegantly adding things into the system in an open
manner. Example: :-CrossDos. We could bring AmigaOS 'up to date'
with regard to :-incorporating networking etc. by this route of adding
pieces on. :-The thing is that due to its elegant good basic design
such additions :-are NOT bolt-ons but can be truly integrated with the
system. That :-is they work well as part of the overall system, not
as cludges, :-even though they are 'added'. :-(Note: Virtual Memory
should NOT be forced into the guts of AmigaOS :-- which would make it
slow to shut down, start up, and remove its :-elegance - but should be
an optional add-on rather like Gigamem etc.)
If we follow a set of design "commandments" and rigourously enforce
them then this should be achievable, much like Piaget's theory of
devlopmental psychology (explaining how an adaptive system responds
to addition, development and restructuring). An add on should fit so
seemlessly that it is indistinguishable from that which was there
before - the idea of common dataports between objects can help here -
What must be kept is the accomadation phase of Piaget as well, that
at some point, enough pressure in add on components may build up to
see the whole structure readjust itself (maybe even a paradigm
shift/revolutionary change) - it is this being prevented that leads to
cludges, where the underlying architecture patently needs to be
changed but cannot (for reasons outside the domain of acceptance -
marketing, ego, idiocy).
:-As regards 'something overwhelmingly superior', what should that
be? :-*** I suggest the I.C. has a voice on this - but first it must
come to some :-agreement on it. I do NOT think that 'overwhelmingly
superior' will lie :-in the direction that Windows-NT is following;
all that will do is to :-ensure that Amiga is eternally behind, and
have no reason for people :-even considering it let along choosing and
purchasing it. No. 'Something :-overwhelmingly superior' must lie in
a direction that Windows-NT is :-not taking.
We should only look at other OSs for good ideas, not for the markets
it is after and the only really good idea that NT has is that it wants
to replace Windows 95 and provide a proper kernal based system. Whilst
there are many who do not like it, the next generation OS needs to
look at what the users want, what theorists can predict, what sci-fi
writers invent, what developers know, a synthesis of computer dogma
and pragma - we need a) to know that there are enough ppl out there
who will buy this thing to make it worth doing and b) that we have
their blessing to go where we wish to go, out into the undiscovered
country. :- :- What is that? Any suggestions? Here's a few: :- :-#
Elegance and efficiency rather than power :-# Fast to turn off and
boot up (this 'trivial' feature is one of :- major advantages of the
Amiga at present!! Keep it so.) :-# Animation and movement :-#
Proximal user interface (using Michael Polanyi's term 'proximal' :-as
opposed to 'distal': see Int. Journal Human Computer Studies :-August
1996b issue, two papers: http://ksi.cpsc.ugalgary.ca/IJHCS/ :-#
Spatial knowledge :-# Maybe some aspects of video?
#power, speed and flexibility for those who want it #simplicity and
consistency for those who need it #adaptability, expandability and
scalability for the future #an immersive, responsive, intuitive,
pleasurable interface #transparent intragration (peripherals, software
installation) and intergration (networks/matrices)
In the end, the only reason to use anything is because it lets us do
what we want to do and because we enjoy the act of doing it. We must
never forget that.
In-Reply-To: <33B6F143.55C5@ix.netcom.com> :-1) The corporate
market. :-2) The home market that currently uses computers. :-3) The
rest of the home market that currently doesn't use computers. :- :-The
group 1 market is not something the Amiga is going to play into any :-
time soon, if ever. Therefore, IMHO, it is not a really good idea to
:-spend a great amount of resources trying.
In effect we work mainly in 1. We do corporate Amiga's, these are
companies wanting to show information, play sounds, train people,
control equipment, etc. This is a broad market which can include all
the video and raytracing applications used for professional reasons.
My own personal opinion is that the market is much bigger than for
home users wanting to play the latest game or use a wordprocessor.
I am afraid that the moment anyone says "sell Amiga's" everyone
wants Joe or his mum to buy an Amiga for games or looking up apple
pie recipes.
I have a computer that far outshines the Sony Playstation for low
cost public display. I also have a computer that can deliver
training for half the price of a PC. It is flexible, responsive, low
cost (and most of the customers never see the interface). The Amiga
still wins in many market areas because of its abilities. The home
market is trying to find a way to sell itself, with most of the
attention focusing on higher end performance that tries to place the
Amiga into the price range where even a vibrant Commodore could only
sell a few thousand machines. At the low end the investment required
to take on and beat the PC and the N64 will require that manufacture
is budgeted for 1 million machines, who would risk $200million on a
whim (other than Sony)?
:-Group 3 is where the real growth potential is for all platforms.
These :-people are generally frightened by computers and have no
interest in :-learning the arcane knowledge us computer geeks possess.
The only way :-that I know of to attract this group is through
entertainment, certainly :-not by trying to sell them a computer. Any
system sold to this group :-will need to incorporate a natural
interface and provide a rich :-interesting environment.
I agree. But I have the vain hope that some people would buy it
because it proved of some real value in their lives, such as email.
The big market must be women as the highest proportion of existing
users are male and for many a purchase has to be justified to the
lady of the house (and she asked me to word that sympathetically:).
Regards, Mick Tinker Index Information Ltd, England index@cix.co.uk
http://www.cix.co.uk/~index fax: +44-(0)1256-701023
-------------------------- From Jesse McClusky :- :-:-:-# Animation
and movement :-:- :-:-It's interesting that NT v4.0 has sacrificed
some security in order to :-:-gain extra video performance. :- :-Isn't
it? Seems like a design flaw to me that it has to do so... (: :-Oh,
wait. That's not a bug, it's a "feature". *grin* ------------------
--------
Hi :)
On 03-Jul-97, Clash Bowley wrote:
CB>This brings up another thing I've been thinking about. I have the
CB>feeling sometimes here that although we've all been talking about
CB>amigas, I think an amiga is very like a snake, while "X" thinks the
CB>amiga is very like a tree, and "Z" thinks an amiga is very like a
CB>rope.
CB>Maybe we should define what makes an amiga an amiga.
Never as easy as it sounds, this one. It inevitably means different
things to different people. How about this for starters though.
The fundamental things that make an Amiga an Amiga:
Minimalist in design and concept; Forward looking and open to
expansion; Flexible and adaptable; Intuitive;
I'm sure theres lots more, but thats what sprang to mind.
--
Have fun,
Eoghann
SOLAR FLARE http://www.thenet.co.uk/~eoghann/ PROJECTS:
Nagger 60% AmiBar 70% Member of *DESKTOP* *CORRUPTION* PROJECT:
Child of Darkness http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/3023
Hi!
I have been making a little noise about something that I feel would
be very important to the Amiga community and I'd like some input..
Updating the IFF Standard to include artist/animator definable
independent simultaneous multi-range color cycling, frame keyable
color palette animation, frame callable 8bit IFF and 16bit AIFF sound
sample playability options, and dramatically optimized compression,
native to Amiga but available as a "plug-in" on non-Amiga platform
machines.
The only way that this could happen is if a large developer such as
Cloanto, ImageFX, EA, Amiga, (etc..) or someone with a lot of guts
became involved.
The Amiga has the (AFAIK) unique ability to cycle colors. This is a
simple process of grabbing an interupt to cycle the defined color
range. Unfortunately, it will only cycle one range. I would like to
cycle several ranges. This would break a great limitation in the IFF
standard, for I, as an artist, designer, and animator, have tons of
incomplete work which requires a multirange colorcycling.
I.E.: Name of Company, painted on the Amiga in two seperate ranges
("Symbiotic" is large script, "DESIGN" is smaller caps). The company
name is over another cyclable range, which forms the plaque. In my
example, I'll say that the "Symbiotic" script is cycling yellow in a
downward motion, "DESIGN" is cycling a varrying intensity of whites
(as if light or chrome) and the plaque behind it is cycling reds
upwards (as if flames).
Now, that would take a total of 3 interupts. Any Amiga could handle
that. But lets take it further, the top and right of the Plaque edge
could be cycling more brilliant reds and the bottom and left edges be
cycling darker reds, giving the "plaque" for the logo a 3D effect.
But that's not enough. I want this happening on my web page. Add
one more interrupt to handle the background. That's right, the
background IFF should not only be tiled, but also seamlessly cycling
light blues (as if waves of water).
CURRENT Modern Amigas are perfectly capabable of this and more
(therefore I think that 8 or 12 or 16 definable independent color
cycling ranges is not too many to ask for).
And it isn't just that this is a neat trick and a cheap way to
activate your web page (the logo is still a single frame
graphic(/animation) which simply includes extra color cycling
definition information for more ranges in the header, only the viewer
software and hardware has to do any extra work), this same technique
could be used in video titling, etc. I'd like to do one and dedicate
a little 1200 and monitor to use as an animated sign/advertisement
slideshow when(/if) I get a storefront.
But since it IS only a graphic, so the user wouldn't have to suffer
due to slow connection speeds, etc, as it would take up very little
bandwidth.
The fact that it would be easily possible to animate the background
is of course, a neat deal, but would not take the resources neccessary
to background an actual animation, or mpeg.. not just simply because
of filesize/bandwidth, but because of the simplicity of it's design.
As it's only the graphic and the colors are being cycled (or multi-
cycled) behind the text (web page content), it would not be neccessary
to update the screen after each frame is redrawn, (alas, there is only
one frame) to make sure that the text remained legible, as the
computer would simply cycle the colors.
As for animation, I truly believe that the Amiga is the best
animator's tool that is available. But we still need to improve it
drastically..
I need to be able to animate in more resolutions as a standard.
I need to be able to save frame by frame timing information (though
some Amiga programs support this, I don't believe that it has evolved
into a standard).
The IFF Anim standard should allow specific frame/sound timing by
loading in animator definable IFF or AIFF sound samples. AIFF 16bit
sound samples are included for support of aftermarket DSP's and 16bit
sound boards, (and because I personally believe the 1200 should have
been updated to use a simple inexpensive 16bit CDROM-type soundplayer
chip and 4000's should be using DSPs, by now) as well as to support
future 16bit stereo sound NG Amigas. The animator should have the
ability to either load the samples from the current directory, (so
that web browsers know where to find them) or a definable specified
directory relative to the current directory for the anim (for
archives). By allowing IFF/AIFF sound sample calling, the animator is
further enhancing his cartoon/presentation/webpage, and allows us to
reuse the same samples over and over (such as an animation of a
gremlin tapping his foot to music). It also gives us the ability to
save on bandwidth by using sounds repetitively, instead of
individually (like in an mpeg or quicktime). Now we can think not
just in visuals, but in effects and music as well. (Instead of
creating visual-only oriented Anims or audio-oriented mods, we can
create musical animations.) This standard should also allow us to
call the channels we want to play the samples on, allowing for us to
keep an OctaMED as background music on other channels, perhaps even
allowing OctaMEDPlayer hooks for synching mods with anim timing..
Teijo?
The IFF Brush needs the ability to save (multirange) colorcycling,
sample calling, palette changing, and timing information so that the
above ideas can be implementted like a GIF, (GIFs can be any size, and
animated GIFs include frame by frame timing info) or the Anim standard
needs to be size definable so that we aren't sending huge bandwidth
anims for a simple 100x40 chracter animation (or trying to accomodate
an IFF by allowing for unneccessary white space ("color 0" or
"Transparencey") as well).
Of course, the IFF standard needs better compression as well and
this would enhance it's use on the web if this was addressed -- well,
ok, it's a neccessity.
By making the IFF standards available to view with NS and IE
"plugins" we would not only be refraining from alienating PC/Mac/Unix
users from the Amiga, we would also be showing off our platform and
the Amiga's capabilities.
Thanks for letting me bend your ear.
-dp "Art can change the
world!" Doug Peters Graphic Designer, Animator, Videographic
Artist. dp@cybermail.net Print, World Wide Web, Multimedia,
Games, Video. dp@symbioticdesign.com
http://www.symbioticdesign.com/
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Jeffrey D. Webster wrote:
:-:-But in the mean time, Amiga's with SVGA chips wouldn't be bad
either. :- :- Hmm... and lose the low cost broadcast video
compatibility? NTSC/PAL :-support is going to have to stay.
Oops. You just struck a note in my head!
Now, I could be totaly wrong here. But i've studied SVGA a little,
and AmigaOS a lot...
I see no reason we'd have to lose anything Amiga like by going to
SVGA (except maybe for dragable screens).
From my understanding, there's no reason you cannot program SVGA
chips to do NTSC and PAL resolutions. The reason you can't do this on
PC's is this:
#1. SVGA monitors don't sync that low. #2. Most importantly, MS-
DOS/Windows doesn't support it.
By carefully choosing the chipset, you would have no problem doing
NTSC/PAL modes, in addition to all the hi-resolution SVGA modes that
we cannot currently do. Even syncing to the frame rate is possible,
the registers are there, they're just not part of the VGA standard
(far as I know, there's no real standard for SVGA).
AmigaOS gives us the API for changing resolutions, for syncing to
the vertical refresh, for changing colour registers, etc. This can be
supported through RTG drivers on many if not all SVGA chipsets.
Why is the Amiga better for multimedia and video? It is more the OS
than anything. Way back when, the Amiga chipset was an advantage, but
SVGA chips are now much more powerfull in many ways. AmigaOS gives us
the API to make things easy. Its near-realtime, efficient
multitasking is perfect for it.
I see no reason an Amiga in the tradition of the A500/A1200 could
not be made with SVGA chips, for a darn cheap price. MPEG hardware is
easily supported with Datatypes.
Here's my idea: Take an SVGA chip(set), and add an Amiga-chip to
it... the Amiga chip would do things like add HAM modes, a copper for
changing resolutions and colours on the fly, perhaps a more
sophisticated blitter, etc. Imagine HAM at 1280 x 1024, non-
interlaced. Imagine HDTV modes (1400 x 500? Or whatever it is).
This would be cheap to do, allows us to keep up with the best SVGA
chips for the PC. The same can be done for audio hardware (DSP?).
A PPC Amiga with SVGA, and a DSP for sound, running AmigaOS would
suit me fine. Especialy if it can be done for under $1000.
Give it an IBM standard keyboard and mouse (with Amiga keys of
course), standard high-density floppy, etc to reduce costs.
:-JDW
On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Ray Akey wrote:
:- :-On 11-Jul-97, Aric the Blue wrote: :-:-:-Is draggable screens
actually that important to people? I must say :- :-Yes it is. To
those who use it for its benefit, it is of great use. :-For example,
CNet Amiga Professional BBS System (of which I am the developer :-of
course) has a "Half lace" mode in which two to four screens can be put
in :-half lace AND half screen mode so that the sysop can monitor up
to four :-ports (out of a possible 100) at any given time. Please do
NOT request that :-this capability of Amiga be removed. It is one of
the features that make this :-OS unique. If you take away the
uniqueness of the OS, who will want to run :-it? :-We might as well
all go out and start getting weaned on Win95 and it's rigid, :-inane
non-configurability and file associations. :- Now you have me
thinking. I have a freind who uses small screens which he scrolls up
infront of the program screen to present the GUI. I am also wondering
if ImageFX is programmed this same way. I have been told that
originally, the Amiga wasn't even supposed to have menu capabilities
at all (I don't know if it's true) in favor of a more graphically
oriented interface, but was included because 1) GUIs with intense
graphics might scroll too slowly, 2) And to allow for easy portability
from other platforms.
Of course, the same effect could be accomplished with scrolling
windows, but they would (of course) have to be the same resolution.
Obviously, to Ray, the split resolutions are important, but are
there other apps that rely on it? And if so, can they not be
rewritten to use windows and rescalable fonts?
Out-of-nowhere dept.:
I personally believe that there are certain applications that should
be on Amigas, Like Adobe's Photoshop, Premiere, PageMill, and
SiteMill. Since Adobe is working on a better "on-line" scalable font
standard (specifically tailored to on-screen viewing) wouldn't it be
possible that Adobe might become interested in supporting our platform
if Amiga signed on to support the new standard? Wouldn't they want to
make sure that they could provide as much help as possible in securing
license fees by helping the Amiga offer a viable platform again?
I just hate emulating the MacOS to run Adobe products (that I buy to
run on my Amiga, damnit!).
Ben Hutchings wrote: :-On 07-Jul-97, you wrote: :-:-:-:-system.
This then leads us to the inescapable fact that instead of one :-:-:-
:-new :-:-:-:-filesystem, the Open Amiga would have to have TWO file
systems developed :-:-:-:-concurrently. dos.library would have to
account for either filesytem, :-:-:-:-programmers USING dos.library
would have to account for both, and so on. :-> :-:-But surely this is
what the Amiga does at present. My hard disks are :-:-all FFS while
my floppies are all OFS. Two different filesystems. :-:-No problem.
Yup.
:-The difference between OFS and FFS is trivial, as is the
difference :-between the original and international versions of them.
DirCache :-variants are a bit more complicated, but then they are also
reputed to :-be quite buggy. ;-)
Ok, now what do you say when I mention CrossDos, AmiCDFS (and all
those ISO CD-ROM file systems)? There are even some to address the old
C64 floppy format when you attach a 1541 floppy drive to the parallel
port. So, loadable file systems are already a *strength* and a feature
of AmigaOS since many years.
:-:-Horray for the Amiga's open, flexible, elegant design - yet
again. :- :-Not really... all 6 variants are implemented by the same
code.
You are a bit tight-sighted in this issue, it seems.
In-Reply- :-:-Can we do this not just from an Amiga point of view,
from our :-:-own point of view but from a detached perspective, as
though we :-:-were some scummy wall street analyst giving them a
report. :-:-Let's be bluntly honest and see it from their side with
dollar :-:-signs in our eyes. :- :-I don't want to. :-The answer would
be, "make a PC clone" or "make a super-console". :-The Amiga will
never make anyone mega-rich, but it can be a great :-computer.
I suspect that there may be some analysts that say that, however I
would say "don't back a clone maker, the market is too cut throat".
To create a market you have to do something different, better or
different and better, not the same.
The Amiga needs to focus on what it can do best now (I won't drag
this out by saying again what I believe are its niche areas, and that
I back it with our money). The next step is to decide where you want
the platform to go and how to get it there, preferable extending its
unique features so that it retains its branding and appeal, while
adding truly worthwhile features that extend its *applications*.
To do that the users perspective of the OS is a small part. The
major part is what the OS allows the developer to do easily. I well
remember all the time I spent developing subroutines on the C64 only
to find that they were in the OS on the Amiga and much more powerful
and with hardware support. The underlying OS effects how easy it is
to develop certain applications - this tends to be hidden now with
Windows/Mac because of the size of the resources being thrown at the
problems, money is overcoming the shortfalls. The OS can no longer
get by just supporting drawing lines or saving blocks of memory to
disk.
The direction is perhaps multimedia, there should therefore be
better support for capturing, manipulating and outputting multimedia
data types with minimal function calls (if simple function calls are
the correct way to implement these features).
Without some direction on where we are and where we are going Amiga
is a poor investment.
o What are the Amiga's unique strengths. o Which direction should
it head that builds on those strengths (which application areas). o
What OS/hardware features are required to allow those application to
happen.
Hans-Joerg Frieden: :-NO NO NO! AmigaOS never was an RealTime OS.
Get this out of your head. It :-does have very fast response times,
but this is a completely different :-topic. Purity does not help much
to run a proram without crashing - It :-just does not make assumptions
when starting about what is in the global :-data space - if any other
program overwrites it, you are in trouble :-again.... Reentrancy has
nothing to do with Realtime OSes, it's just a :-means of saving you
the trouble of loading something twice...
Here I quote from the 1990 RKM (the blue one) in the chapter on Exec
Tasks:
"The Amiga Exec library provides a real-time message-based multi-
tasking environment." Copyright 1990 by Commodore-Amiga (Addison-
Wesley RKM Libraries and Devices book)
Some models of Amiga have even been advertised in some of the new
products' glossies as having a real-time OS. (maybe the CD32, I don't
remember now) but I do not think that marketing has ever understood
the concept.
I also design real-time systems for my profession, and have studied
the subject formally for many years. I use words differently than
many people, but it is to try to overcome complancency in others. I
seriously do not believe that very many people actually understand how
technically advanced the Amiga really is, and how much it is worth.
I doubt that there is anything I can say to convince you that the
Amiga Exec is a real-time design. I understand that real-time means
many things to many people, and that is part of the problem here.
There are many applications written that do not take full advantage of
the Amiga real-time Exec, but in one way or another, all applications
take advantage of some aspect of it.
The Amiga real-time Exec is probably the best overall design for
real-time that is currently available. I wish I had the SAS debugger
for the project I am doing right now. It handles tasks much nicer than
a Borland Debugger.
If you write code in either a real-time or preemptive environment
that is not PURE, or reentrant, you will get strange side effects or
crashes. That is why it is good to understand real-time design when
you write programs for the Amiga. I remember compiling 10 programs at
once through the early lc (now SASC) compiler without it crashing.
That is cool. Reentrancy is good to understand.
Amiga, real-time, I can't get it out of my head... Steve Shireman
DAVID BALAZIC wrote: :- :-Vance Schowalter wrote : :->:->Win95 can
NOT open GIFs and JPGs , at least not for desktop background. :->>=20
:->:-Yeiks! Can't they even do that? :-> :->They should be able to. A
friend of mine loads up PhotoCD pics as :->backdrops (so do I, on my
Amiga) on his PC. :- :-I just tried , they CAN'T ! ( gif and jpg ) :-
:-Maybe with some add-on , patch, upgrade ?
MSIE will load JPG and GIF files, and if you right click on the
image and select Set As Wallpaper, it will convert it to a BMP and
display it as the backdrop image.
But MSIE is not part of WIN95, an addon called the PLUSPACK or
download it from the MS web page
Midian
Fredrik Lundström wrote: :-We don't have VM in the OS - but programs
to give us that (GigaMem & VMM) - :-and RAM surely isn't quite as
expensive nowdays as it used to be. We don't need VM - Amiga programs
haven't been so resource-hungry, and memory is cheap (I have 35 mb and
never since had any "out-of-memory" requesters.
:-We can't have more than 256 colours on the WB of a standard Amiga
- but most :-GFX cards are shipped with CyberGFX and we don't want to
use HAM on the WB :-anyway. Theoretically, Win95 cannot have more
colors too - you need a graphics card capable of it, and a driver.
Same with the Amiga.
:-We only have 8 bit sound - but AHI solves that. Some PC's only
have ADlib sound - HORRIBLE!!! and even Sound Blasters are no match
for the Amiga audio...
:-We don't have a simple GUI engine built in the OS - but we have
MUI (hate it :-if you want - but it *is* easy for the programmer).
GadTools? BOOPSI? They definately qualitfy as simple, if not more...
:-We can't open GIF's or JPG's right away - but they surely aren't
our "native" :-formats and how to make Windows 95 open any non-PC
format? Dunno what you mean by this!?! I can double click any JPEG
file which is immediately viewed with Multiview... PPaint can load
JPEG and GIF... Every datatype-aware program can do it...
:-Yes, most of us has lots of wishes about the OS. The above was
just my :-thoughts. However, good things (tm) doesn't has to be
implemented in the OS :-for start, if most people use them anyway.
Okay, one of the strengths of :-AmigaOS compared to many other OS's in
the older days (when most of the :-features that me miss now were SF
for us back then) was that we didn't _need_ :-lots of stuff just to
get a /usable/ computer. With those things in mind, I :-still think we
have a better OS than most computer users. There is, as a rule,
nothing that is so perfect that it hasn't some points for improvements
- even AmigaOS... GadTools would be a good start...
:-I don't disagree, but there are some applications out there that
has been :-tested for a *long* time now by most users, and lots of
"people understanding :-more than the average user". Mostly I think of
MUI, and I don't think MUI is :-bug-free, but I think it ought to be
part of the OS. It is just *soo* easy to :-use for the programmer.
There's a hell lot of people that would disagree and say that BGUI or
ClassAct would be the way to go. As a standard for GUI's, I'd say go
for GTLayout, which offers most in terms of flexibility and is fast
enough for everyone...
On 24-Jul-97, Olaf Barthel wrote:
:-On Jul 23 Fredrik (Fredrik Lundström) wrote:
:-:-We know that AmigaOS 3.1 is almost bug-free
:- I don't agree with you. It is virtually bug-free in the context
that we :-are "familiar" with the bugs that are in there.
Well, that might be true, but from a user's point of view, I find
AmigaOS much more stable to use than Windows 95 (or even worse, Win
3.11). Individual applications are usually what causes most bugs for
me, as opposed to when I have to use Windows 95 or Win 3.11.
On Jul 29 Roger (Roger Hågensen) wrote:
:-On 29-Jul-97, Olaf wrote: :- :->On Jul 28 Jeff (Jeff Grimmett)
wrote: :->:-I personally have a hard time believing any of this -- I
doubt that :->>Gates knows what the Amiga is, knows who owns it, or
even cares. :- :->Just look at the Windows 95 prefs programs: somebody
knew pretty well :->what an Amiga or AmigaOS is. :- :-What is that
Olaf? :-I have only used Win95 for a short while :-(I lent a machine
from a friend, when I got my A1200 I surfed with :- my A1200 instead,
so I really didn't see that much of Win95, :- I had a A500 earlier but
it was too slow for my surfing :-( :-so please tell me what you mean,
does it copy any Amiga stuff?
The mouse preferences editor is probably the most obvious
example. The Amiga "Input" preferences both allow you to view the time
it takes for a double-click to be valid and to test whether a double-
click is valid by clicking a button. Traditionally, all other mouse
driven operating systems that allow these settings to be changed only
had a display to show how fast a double-click has to be, but no test
option. The "Jack in the box" display in the Windows95 Mouse
preferences is for testing double-clicks.
Shireman, Steve wrote:
:->>Instead, noone I know is quite :->>sure where WindowsCE OS came
from. :->>Although WindowsCE is still much more bloated than :->>Amiga
Exec, it is less bloated than Gate's other attempts. :->WindowsCE is
merely an extremely stripped down version of Windows95. :->None of the
animations or pretty pictures in :->requesters, very spartan in
everything else too. :-WindowsCE I am sure is another piece of
MicroSh*t, and I think CE :-must stand for Crappy Engineering, since
noone seems to know :-what it really means.
It stands for Consumer Electronics and it designed for use on
consyumer-electronics like MobilePhones, Microwave-ovens and stuff
like that. In my opinion it is because of the small margins in the
PC-market that Microsoft will try to get a grip around consumer-
electronics... ...And whats worrying me is that they have the
resources to do it.
:-My brand-new Gateway Pentium 200 MHz work-supplied :-Windows 95
computer bought brand new a month ago :-locks up generally a dozen
times per day. I have run
My 150MzH Windows NT with 80mb RAM is generally slower in use than
my old Amiga4000/030 and crashes once or twice a day.... I _really_
miss my Amiga.
On 31-Jul-97, Fred Heitkamp wrote: :-On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Giorgio
Gomelsky wrote:
:-:-FYI - Below a message I sent to a CNET discussion-forum. :-:-gg
:-:------------------------------------------ :-> :-:-
:-I agree.
:-:-the kind of solid multitasking abilities of the AmigaOS and,
quite :-:-frankly it hasn't surpassed it. I know, I use both
platforms. The
:-I disagree. I use both platforms too. Unfortunately Windows 95
is *far* :-more stable and usable than AmigaOS if you use the newest
software. I say
I highly disagree with Win 95 being *far* more stable. I work on a
university help desk and we see hundreds, thousands of calls about
windows 95 problem after problem. I am quite convinced that it is a
total piece of shit. This is on everything from the oldest 386 to the
latest pentiums with latest software. The headaches and wasted time
that goes into using and supporting Windows 95 is a total joke. I
would say hundreds of thousands of hours of productivity are lost
fiddling with windows 95.. in fact i think one survey was undertaken
to show upwards of 33% of a users time was spend fiddling with windows
95.
The Amiga is a far more elegant and simple approach to computing
both conceptually and in the implementation. That philosophy has
been lost by the majority of users thanks to the marketing blitzkreig
of microsoft.
:-this not to start a flame war, but to have a real discussion about
:-improvements necessary to AmigaOS, to make it competitive now and in
the :-future. I will give one small example to get started: The
Subject: system :-requesters. I was printing a document yesterday on
my Amiga. I did not :-notice that my printer was not hooked up.
AmigaOS brought up a request :-saying that the printer was not ready.
Noticing that the printer was not :-plugged in, and not wanting to
plug into a live connector, I clicked the :-cancel button thinking
that would cancel the print job (sounds logical, :-right?). Well
that's not what happened; I continued to get the stupid :-requester
until I plugged the freaking printer in. This kind of behavior :-
would not be tolerated in corporate America. 'Retry' should mean retry
:-and 'cancel' should mean cancel. Actually in this case, it should
be :-abort IMHO. Another example: Have you ever put a floppy with a
'ton' of :-bad blocks in an Amiga? Well I did, accidentally, and
guess what :-happens? You spend the next 30 minutes clicking 'cancel'
and if you take :-the disk out, the system keeps wanting you to put
the disk back in.
The bottom line is to keep it simple, design it right, keep it lean.
:-:-The reason the Amiga has survived through now roughly 5 years of
being :-:-without a "mother company" and awe-inspiring catastophies,
developed :-:-perhaps the richest library of share- and free software,
sustained :-:-itself through user-groups and self-support mechanisms,
:-:-is precisely because it allows the user to pursue and practice his
:-:-"love" of creative computing, to "follow his bliss", as Joseph
Campbell :-:-might say.
The concepts have kept it alive. Efficiency, elegance, user
responsiveness, and of course the qualities you mentioned above.
Unfortunately today the "brute force and ignorance" thought rules the
day.
:-Yeah true I guess. :-> :-:-The Amiga is not just an ingeniously
designed platform. There's a :-:-"spirit", a Gestalt, a community
culture, call it what you like, at :-:-work.
Yep, exactly. And if Gateway 2000 can capture this in a new
Operating System, then they may have something special again.
Darren
:->>>and stuff like that. In my opinion it is because of the small
:->>>margins in the PC-market that Microsoft will try to get a :->:-
margins in Consumer Electronics are evern smaller... :-Maybe, but as
you also said, it's much bigger so there is :-probably som billions to
earn there... More than that, I suspect! I have a marketting paper on
my desk that shows a larger market than that for PLC's alone. I have
had someone ask me to desigh a 'virtual PLC'. In the past when
AmigaVision was still being heavily developed, I was suggesting to the
author to make it possible for third parties to add icons to the
menus/flows so I could make PLC's etc inside it. Then I could release
a flavor called "AmigaVision Industrial' or such to make it easy for
control application designers to work at a higher level.
I have had 13 or 14 AmigaVision development environments open at the
same time before running out of Chip memory.
I had hoped when I first heard of 'public screens' that they would
allow multiple AmigaVision programs to cooperate on the same screen,
but it hasn't gotten that far yet... (I have gotten Zedrexx to display
on the AmigaVision private screen, but it didn't work on Scala)
I also had hoped it would be made datatyped and part of the OS
without such a large player.
Most real-time control programmers have to work at such a low level
that they can't see the potential products through the real-time
forest.
I am optimistic that at least Carl Sassenrath has the word 'control'
in his Rebol page. I have emailed him some ideas, but I think he
already knows the subject very well.
Even today you don't see too many embedded applications which
incorporate color-cycling, but it was really kind of fun to create
some.
:-:-There are many more embedded :-:-CPU's sold per year for
embedded systems than for :-:-Desktop Systems. Even Commodore-Amiga
had realized :-:-this. It was Jeff Porter that told me the above at
the :-:-Orlando DevCon in 1993. At least some people :-:-there
realized what the Amiga offers for embedded :-:-systems. :-
Interesting. Have you heard/read anything about any :-development of
the AmigaOS in that area? I am afraid that since embedded control for
industry was not the core business, it has had to be ignored as things
got tough at C=A.. However the principles needed to accomplish
embedded control are not different than the principles to do
preemptive multitasking, video and multimedia. In fact, the
requirements for video and multimedia give some of the most difficult
technical/timing constraints for CPU's to accomplish in today's
markets.
CATS (Commodore-Amiga Technical Support) sent some industrial
control people to discuss these things with me in the past, It is
great now with AI to have the technology being licensed out, and from
multiple vendors. This can be used to get government/military
contracts. (The military has done some wonderful things with the
Amiga.)
Petro is aware how close 0S-9 and Amiga Exec are in size, and which
one adds graphics easier and more compactly to the OS.
I think the news blurb about Index Technology was very interesting
for embedded application designers. (the guy who did the British
Transport museum networked application)
But since the core business is Video/Multimedia for AI, the embedded
market is better as a third party venture, in my opinion. I just want
to make sure that the OS doesn't get gummed up by people who do not
know it's potential. The OS is already developed where it needs to be
for this. The hardware form to put it into is the hardest problem to
solve, and the licensing of this technology to third parties allows
this to get solved without depending on AI to develop it.
Steve Shireman
Shireman, Steve wrote: :->:-WindowsCE I am sure is another piece of
MicroSh*t, and I think CE :->:-must stand for Crappy Engineering,
since noone seems to know :->:-what it really means. :->It stands for
Consumer Electronics and it designed for :-At CES earlier this year, I
was told that CE did not :-mean Consumer Electronics. Of course, OLE
no :-longer means Object Level Embedding, either. I still :-prefer my
definition for CE, ;-)
I agreee:-)
:->and stuff like that. In my opinion it is because of the small :-
>margins in the PC-market that Microsoft will try to get a :-margins
in Consumer Electronics are evern smaller...
Maybe, but as you also said, it's much bigger so there is probably
som billions to earn there...
:-There are many more embedded :-CPU's sold per year for embedded
systems than for :-Desktop Systems. Even Commodore-Amiga had realized
:-this. It was Jeff Porter that told me the above at the :-Orlando
DevCon in 1993. At least some people :-there realized what the Amiga
offers for embedded :-systems.
Interesting. Have you heard/read anything about any development of
the AmigaOS in that area?
:-I have run control software on the Amiga booting off :-of a
battery-backed SRAM PCMCIA card without a hard :-drive or floppy using
only 4K of the PCMCIA card to boot. :-Think of the PCMCIA card as
replacing the hard drive in :-a desktop system. The only RAM overhead
was about :-54K, and with this I have the full color model and mouse
:-control, and fully preemptive multitasking and of the :-2 Meg of RAM
that comes with the A1200, The Amiga :-OS has only needed less than 1
/ 10,000 of the RAM :-available. And I know it is using a few of the
OO :-Objects in the Kickstart, but not very many.
! The amiga still surprises me!
:-I believe that the current design of the Amiga Exec :-is much
better suited for Consumer Electronics :-than WindowsCE. This goes
also for HPC's or :-PDA. (Personal Digital Amiga, wouldn't that :-be
cool with a video out. With AAA chips it :-could have video in as
well, and not eat batteries, :-but now I am dreaming...)
I agree! There is plenty of possibilities for the Amiga. We can
only hope that somebody with the right knowledge and the right
resources realises that. think about it: Amiga Everywhere! Must be
heaven!
...And as far as i concern, the only thing that Windows does very
well, is earning money for Bill and his micro-shit!
-- Øyvind Segrov segrov@online.no
:-:->>Instead, noone I know is quite :-:->>sure where WindowsCE OS
came from. :-:->>Although WindowsCE is still much more bloated than :-
:->>Amiga Exec, it is less bloated than Gate's other attempts. :-:-
>WindowsCE is merely an extremely stripped down version of Windows95.
:-:->None of the animations or pretty pictures in :-:->requesters,
very spartan in everything else too. :-:-WindowsCE I am sure is
another piece of MicroSh*t, and I think CE :-:-must stand for Crappy
Engineering, since noone seems to know :-:-what it really means.
:-It stands for Consumer Electronics and it designed for At CES
earlier this year, I was told that CE did not mean Consumer
Electronics. Of course, OLE no longer means Object Level Embedding,
either. I still prefer my definition for CE, ;-) :-use on consyumer-
electronics like MobilePhones Yeah, I know. But the MFG will have to
more than double the price of the appliance to pay for CE and its
resources. I have done the math. :-, Microwave-ovens :-and stuff like
that. In my opinion it is because of the small :-margins in the PC-
market that Microsoft will try to get a margins in Consumer
Electronics are evern smaller... :-grip around consumer-
electronics... ...And whats worrying :-me is that they have the
resources to do it.
The drive to get into the embedded market I believe is driven by the
fact that it is a huge market compared to desktop systems. There are
many more embedded CPU's sold per year for embedded systems than for
Desktop Systems. Even Commodore-Amiga had realized this. It was Jeff
Porter that told me the above at the Orlando DevCon in 1993. Jeff
Porter was in charge of engineering at the time, right under Lewis
Eggebrecht. (the designer of the IBM PC jr.) At least some people
there realized what the Amiga offers for embedded systems.
I have run control software on the Amiga booting off of a battery-
backed SRAM PCMCIA card without a hard drive or floppy using only 4K
of the PCMCIA card to boot. Think of the PCMCIA card as replacing the
hard drive in a desktop system. The only RAM overhead was about 54K,
and with this I have the full color model and mouse control, and fully
preemptive multitasking and of the 2 Meg of RAM that comes with the
A1200, The Amiga OS has only needed less than 1 / 10,000 of the RAM
available. And I know it is using a few of the OO Objects in the
Kickstart, but not very many.
Of course, the same thing can be done on an A600, which is even
cheaper, or custom boards.
It would be nice for OEM's to be able to license Kickstart (remove
parts they don't want), and link application code, and plug a Flash
chip into the same socket where Kickstart goes.
Envoy, the network software also has tiny requirements. I have
booted from a floppy on an A500 with Envoy and served files to the
network with it.
The benefit of the Soft Machine Architecture gives an embedded
designer the chance to only use the parts of the Amiga OS that they
need. Exec has the OpenLibrary() function, which gives the user or
application designer for Amiga systems to decide exactly what
libraries to open after that point. It is a very nice to have that
much control of the system, without mucking with the source code of
the _microkernel.
I believe that the current design of the Amiga Exec is much better
suited for Consumer Electronics than WindowsCE. This goes also for
HPC's or PDA. (Personal Digital Amiga, wouldn't that be cool with a
video out. With AAA chips it could have video in as well, and not eat
batteries, but now I am dreaming...)
I hope future 'improvements' if and when they occur do not ruin the
resource-smallness of the Amiga design.
Steve Shireman
Shireman, Steve was talking about RE: New online help :
:-Arexx is by far the _best_ implementation of REXX around, :-
because of it's adaptation to the wonderful OS. There :-is so much
extra built into the basic Arexx package :-because of the OS, that
other platforms cannot begin :-to dream of...
Since finally taking the time to delve into ARexx, I have opened
doors on my Amiga that make it amaze me once again.
I use Tinymeter with icon launchers to run many frequently run
programs. Instead of just running the programs now I use an Arexx
script (which I can throw together in about 5 minutes!) to do more
functions.
ie: Instead of having it run MIAMI:Miami It checks if Miami is
running. Runs miami if it is not. Checks if Miami is online. If not,
signs on. If so, signs off.
So instead of just running Miami, it is a toggle switch too.
I love Arexx!
On Aug 11 Shireman, (Shireman, Steve) wrote:
:->Yeah, it surely is not legal to distribute them, but if you
look at :->those files with text editor you'll find out that
they were put :->together by... CATS. (Some links point to
somewhere on "CATS_CD") I :->was pretty amazed that Commodore had
"ported" RKMs to .guide files :->themselves (and a bit more amazed
that they then were not on Amiga :->Developer CD. Did those .guides
get lost and AT didn't get them?) :- :-I had at leat two CD's
(bootable in CDTV and CD32) with beautifully :-linked AmigaGuide docs
xrefed to Autodocs. I do not think the RKM :-was on them, because I
asked Carol Scheppner if they could be added :-and she explained the
copywright (Addison Wesley had it) :-These CD's were CATS CD's. I
have at least one of them. You had :-to trade in the v1.0 to get the
v2.0, and I loaned one rather :-permanently to another developer. :-
:-This CD made me believe that it is possible to save trees with CD's.
Somebody ought to do that with Apple's Opus Magnum "New Inside
Macintosh". The prime example for what hallocinogenic substances, such
as a new desktop publishing system, can do to your mind. Well,
actually there are CDs that carry these books, but they are just
Acrobat'ed versions of the printed books and you can "feel" that the
page layout was chosen for printing, not for online reading . The
Amiga RKMs are humble by comparison. And unlike many other operating
system documentations, they go straight to the fact, the BS-content is
extremely low.
:-Very few CD's actually have made me feel this way. While these :-
Deveoper CD's were well done, they could always be improved. :- :-
Booting off of a self-contained CD is still an amazing advantage :-
that we have vs other platforms, even if OS costs went up from :-
$.25/license.
It's time to start lobbying: ask Gateway 2000's Jeff Schindler
and the editor in chief at Addison-Wesley for a publication of the
RKMs on CD. I didn't get that far when I compiled the Amiga Developer
CD v1.1, but I still have the corrected and polished files on my hard
disk drive, ready and waiting. An Amiga Developer CD v2+epsilon could
probably be compiled in less than a week.
At 11:43 AM 8/15/97, Andy Finkel wrote:
:-Two reasons: First, hiding the icon was deemed going to far in
terms of :-beginner safeguarding; not having a shell open by :-
default was considered enough. The second reason was that
occasionally :-(expecially during tech support calls) even a :-
beginner needed a shell to do certain things, and making it difficult
to :-get to wasn't good. :- :-andy :- And the fact that we CAN get
below the hood is, IMHO, a major reason why many of us have stuck with
the Amiga...because it taught au so much about computing. I'd fought
with computers from the bad old days when it was either idiot COBOL or
Geek Assemblar, through VMS and Unix (even dabbled with an APL laptop
system...but the Amiga was the first machine that integrated Niklaus
Wirth's ideas about a mouse and icone driven GUI interface with much
of the power that UNIX-type systems give...
It's also a major reason why we can STILL use our Amigas, as support
becomes a distant memory. We both have learned about the innards, and
CAN GET AT THEM enough to keep tinkering along.
From the humming beehive of Erich Keser's brain: :-Andy Finkel
wrote: :->Two reasons: First, hiding the icon was deemed going to far
in terms of :->beginner safeguarding; not having a shell open by :-
>default was considered enough. The second reason was that
occasionally :->(expecially during tech support calls) even a :-
>beginner needed a shell to do certain things, and making it difficult
to :->get to wasn't good. :-> :->andy :- :-And the fact that we CAN
get below the hood is, IMHO, a major reason why many :-of us have
stuck with the Amiga...because it taught au so much about :-computing.
I'd fought with computers from the bad old days when it :-was either
idiot COBOL or Geek Assemblar, through VMS and Unix (even :-dabbled
with an APL laptop system...but the Amiga was the first :-machine that
integrated Niklaus Wirth's ideas about a mouse and icone :-driven GUI
interface with much of the power that UNIX-type systems give... :- :-
It's also a major reason why we can STILL use our Amigas, as support
:-becomes a distant memory. We both have learned about the innards,
and CAN :-GET AT THEM enough to keep tinkering along.
This is what I have been talking about recently. IMHO *this* is the
spirit of the amiga - you can go as far as you want to go, and the OS
is with you every step of the way. This feeling of effortless shifting
in user power is what makes the amigaOS unique and in that sense,
defines it. If we can keep that feeling in OASYS, we will have an
amiga OS, no matter what else happens.
clash
Ben Hutchings wrote: :- :- :-As far as image goes, the Amiga's
history could well be a bad thing. :-("Isn't that just a games
machine?" "Commodore went bankrupt, so the :-Amiga was a failure.") :-
This is very true Ben. Whilst Amiga users have a certain pride in
bucking the official "Amiga is a games machine" sales pitches, it was
very effective in the eyes of those that left or never even stopped by
the Amiga. Strangely, this might be the one thing that we can promote,
not the machine itself so much as the community that arose around it -
buy an Amiga and become a member of the community as opposed to a Dell
or a Compaq customer.
:- :-Maintaining a customer base is certainly vital, but at the
moment Amiga :-International has no customers. And whoever trusted
the expert opinion :-of a first year student? ;-) :-
well, for a desktop OS, AI would have to identify those who have
stayed with the machine so far as being likely future customers,
although that is by no means certain. But desktop is certainly not the
only market for AI - just the one most pertinent to us as users. We
have to convince AI that there IS a sustainable desktop market, either
through continued patronage or through new converts. The M-Plan has to
deal with how we as users can do our bit to secure that promise.
:- :-Isn't that just because they bought cheap bare-bones systems in
the :-first place, that are inherently expensive to expand? :-
I certainly bought my A1200 from Dixons because it was the cheapest
real computer around and it did most of what I wanted, and I could
upgrade it incrementally. In the US, the prevailing philosophy seems
to be go in and buy the most expensive machine you can afford at the
outset - this is just my observation.
On 16 Aug 97 at 15:49, Jeff Grimmett wrote: :->From the files of
Michael Kramer
On 19-Aug-97, Olaf Barthel wrote: :-:-:->From the files of Michael
Kramer
Ugh! I love having the ability to make my icons whatever size I
please. Those that want small icons, can have them; those who want
medium or large-size icons can have their preference. I say improve
already-excellent tools like Iconian and leave the Icon-handling as
is. Sure, add some better icon/file recognition but don't change the
basic operation/handling.
Hi Ray,
[snip] :- :-I have a goal. Why not remove the CHIP RAM dependancy
of graphics? :-Would this completely break legacy apps or can CHIP RAM
access be :-patched so that is really uses FAST? Can it be done?
I agree, in an ideal world there would be no Chip RAM. But it
*does* give one significant advantage that is still valid for most
applications. It is that having Chip RAM allows the processor to
continue at max speed when using the other, main, RAM. Chip RAM is
that RAM that has contention between the various multiprocessing chips
and the main processor. And where there is contention it slows the
processor down. That is why the PC needs a hi-power pentium to do
anything useful. Because it has only one type of RAM and the processor
is continually being slowed down by contention with other things like
DMA and, depending on its hardware setup, graphics refresh. (Some PC
gfx boards have their own RAM that is in effect their own equivalent
of Chip RAM, except that nothing else can use it (unlike Amiga Chip
RAM which can be shared with other things.)
No, Chip RAM is one of the *excellent* things about the Amiga.
What I would want to see is *more* of it, not less of it. The 2Mb
limit is old (though even now some PC gfx boards give only 1Mb, so our
2Mb is not bad.) C= had planned the next generation to have 16Mb Chip
RAM, I believe. *That* is the way to go, not to get rid of an
important Amiga advantage.
:- :- I am saddened that on one of my Amigas, I have 20MB of RAM
to play, :-develop and toy with but only 1 MB of CHIP which leaves me
with 50k :-or CHIP and approx 16MB of FAST RAM once MUI and a few
"necessary" :-background processes are running. That's a lot of FAST
RAM available :-to be used for loading complete pages of graphics in a
browser. As it is, :-IBrowse will only load 4 or 5 hi-quality
graphics before I run out of CHIP.
Get AWeb instead; and quit MUI :>) Or get a newer machine. :- :-
Will we ever break free of this limitation? It is the only Amiga OS
:-limitation that bothers me. Sure, I could, and eventually will, go
out and :-buy a MegaCHIP or a brand-spanking-new Amiga 4000T. But, for
those that do not :-have this option, the crushing of this barrier
would be quite nice.
Let's keep Chip RAM, and improve it.
Andrew.
:- :--- :- :- :- :-:-Ray Akey - Metal Software - One of the proud,
the few, the AMIGA - --- -- :- :-:-Fido: 1:246/74 INet:
rakey@netrover.com MEMBER/TEAM AMIGA --- - -- :- :-:-1/2 of
ZenMetal - continuing development of CNet AMIGA BBS -- - - - - --- :-
clash wrote: :- :- MacOS assumes *everyone* is a newbie and a
danger to the :-system, :- On the other hand, Unix systems assume
*everyone* is at least :-a power user, :- Win95 just assumes
*everyone* is a sucker. :- What I have always loved about AmigaOS
is the feeling that you :-can go as far as you want to go - if all you
want is a couple :-applications, it is as easy to use for a newbie as
a Mac, but if you :-care to delve into the dark recesses of the OS, a
whole new world :-awaited you, with tools comparable to unix systems.
Yes, this is exactly how I experience it too, and this flavor of
AmigaOS should be kept.
Re newusers and preventing them from causing damage: What is the
opinion here about the strategy in AmigaOS up to 1.2 (I think), where
the icon for the Shell was hidden and could only be made visible
through a Preferences choice. Can anybody report the reasons why this
was given up in later OS versions?
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
:-:-:-:-There is no doubt that applying any sort of context
DB/repository vastly :-:-:-:-increases the complexity of any OS
conforming to the above model of an :-:-:-:-OS - :-:-:-:-the question
is, is that the model of an OS we want for a new Amiga? :-:-:- :-:-:-
No! No! The Amiga must be kept simple, elegant, efficient. :-:-:- :-
:- :-:-No no no to what? We all agree that Windows fails to hit any of
the :-No No to your question: "vastly increases the complexity of any
OS :-conforming to the above model of an OS - the question is, is
that :-the model of an OS we want for a new Amiga?" NoNo to
complexity. :-Not No No to repository.
I tend to agree with Andrew to keep the cornfusion down. I think
Amiga represents the only platform which is currently simple enough
for users, both non-technical and technical, can actually understand.
how to work with the icons and GUI. It is simple now. I believe it
can be made simpler in the future, but that will require some deep
thought.
Don't make it more complex.
If anyone who is reading these threads has not read pages 89-100 in
the Amiga User Interface Style Guide, then I suggest you do. It
covers the philosphies used toward 2.0 and it does emphasize
simplicity. I personally believe it was this release that made the
Amiga overtake the Macintosh in user-friendliness in the GUI. I have
yet to see this be beat. Let us not ruin it by copying complex junk
from platforms who think the user has all day to waste trying to make
her computer do something useful.
I do not want to have to "Shutdown" the Amiga.
The 'registry' that Microsnot uses is just a big shovel for
shovelware installation/uninstall. The Datatype system seems like it
could be made to tell what kind of files are being used and what to do
with them, as it does some of this function already.
C'mon people, you are really scaring me. I don't want to have to
cling to 3.1 because it was the only last usable GUI on the planet....
Steve Shireman
The good ol' Amiga does even better - it'll last out until the year
2070.
:)
Andrew.
At 10:44 AM 9/3/97, Joshua B. Wingell wrote:
:-Of course, the problem with all of this is that this is not
standard :-at all. Everything just gets dumped in the startup-
sequence or in :-the user-startup. Not really user friendly. And its
something that :-even I dread having to edit.
That's good for us poor *users* to know. Editing the SS used to be
something I was fairly comfortable with...until programs started to
dumpt little scripts linked to executables all of the "S" parent
directory
So, for the future we need a well :-thought out *standard* solution
to OS startup that everyone (developers, :-users, etc...) will have to
use.
Thank you! :- :-But make sure you keep the scripting! We don't need
an uneditable :-MacOS extensions situation. :-When something goes
wrong, the power-user :-needs to be able to get under the hood.
Exactly...as I keep finding out with *this* damn Mac... And even the
poor powerless user sometimes has to, when it's 3AM and he's in the
moddle of a majhore project which just keeps crashing...
A *major* advantage of the Amiga is that, from its very beginnings,
it has been possible to both use a GUI and *simultaneously* (joys of
real multitasking!) get under the hood. Heck, that was the only way
to get them running with buggy KS 095 in 85...and is often the only
way to keep 'em running in '96...
:-Yet, the novice should have :-enough easy tools to help fix the
situation as well. :- :-The startup-scripts and
editing/reordering/debugging tool is easy :-enough for the novice and
allows enough control for the hands-on :-type! :- :-Hmm...sorry for
going off on a tangent, but its hard to stop the fingers :-from typing
when you get an idea :) :- :-Josh Wingell
It's also a "tangent" which is immensely important to users.
Coz, :-:->Agreed. I meant that *if* the user uses ShutDown to
stop the system, :-:- :-:-Please, please, please, no ShutDown. I beg
you, no! :-:- :-:-Steve Shireman :-I can think of one good reason for
a ShutDown: Disk activity. A disk :-write being interrupted by a user
shutting down power can be calamitous. :-Of course it's no guarantee
either as many of my customers call up with :-a half meg or so of lost
allocation units: "Ya mean I need to close :-Windows first???" Yeah,
so you're saying people don't understand to do it it anyway. There are
times I forget or I get a power interruption or lockup.
Hey about 40% of the lockups I get in Windoze95 require power
cycling, so software control is gone. But these are not prevalent
problems on the Amiga. So lets not add an extra step we don't need
to.
I have a 1 Gig drive that I have beta tested Amiga OS's from 2.0 to
3.1+ on. I have not had disk problems with it, or any other HD on my
Amigas. I am BAD on computers, and the Amiga is the only one that can
take it.
:-Macs of course require a user to have a software shutoff except in
:-emergency. I don't like their silly floppy power ejection but but
having :-a software-controlled shut down may not be a bad idea.
I know all this, and OS2, WindozeNT and unixes need to be shutdown
properly as well. (and many times it does NOT prevent terrible disk
problems)
I would rather see the filesystem made more bulletproof to power
interruptions than implementing Shutdown on the Amiga. And it is
already pretty good.
Steve Shireman
At 09:14 AM 9/12/97 -0700, McClusky, Jesse wrote:
:-:-Hello McClusky,, :-:- :-:-On 09-Sep-97 15:59:51, you wrote: :-:-
>I think anyone in their right mind would be against an 8MB executable
:-:-+ :-:->plug-ins :-:- :-:-Do you really know what comes with such a
large suite? It's way more :-:-than :-:-just a browser. For starters
you get a WYSIWYG web page editor, a :-:-video :-:-conferencing tool,
a push client, just to speek of things that Amiga :-:-simply :-:-
doesn't have. :-:- :-I'm probably far more familiar with it than you,
I'm afraid. :-My point was that they designed and implement it poorly
:-in code. Properly done, the base executable itself would be :-no
more than approximately 1 MB, with a series of modules :-for the
extended functionality it offers. Just for trivia's sake, :-there's
nearly 1.5MB of essentially redundant code in it.
It's a little more than that actually.. What you are talking about
is an 8MB executable.. I seem to remember that it was the installation
file that was 8MB... Which would make the executable even bigger..
Hmm.. Just looked. The whole netscape directory is 17.5MB... Although
the executable itself is 'only' 3.74MB... On the other hand, I
checked internet exploder too, 1.46 Megs in the ie directory.. but
don't count on it being smaller than Netscape.. It just spreads it
stuff all over the system.. I don't know which version it is, because
I don't even dare running it. I hate exploder.. especially internet
exploder, but also the normal dirutility exloder and windows itself
(which is also named explorer...). IE's days on this computer is
counted... about ten seconds I guess... =) gone... =)
While we're at big programs.. I installed office97 a month ago or
so, and I removed all crap except for the main Word and Excel
programs. The installer said it would just take 32 Megs. I installed
it on my D: partition, which is the one I used for installing programs
on. My C: partition was only meant for windows to have its crappy
files on. But.. there was a problem.. the installer said "not enough
space on drive".. I thought "what the heck? I had 700 Megs free a
minute ago..". Then I noticed that it was complaining over that C: was
full.. In the requester it also said "space needed on C: 36MB, D:
33MB".... So... just two small programs took up 70 Megs... but Billy
Boy tried to trick me to believe that it only used 30 Megs.......
/Staffan
In-Reply-
:-PN>well, seems to be good niche for the Amiga in the
kiosk/corporate :-market.. :-PN>with a little help from say Newtek
I`m sure the Amiga could storm :-the PN>video market once again as
well.. :- :-Index Information seem pretty confident. :)
wasnt even talking about /them/ ;)
:-We did discuss the matter of the Amiga and the video market
somewhat :-earlier and I think it was agreed that there were ways to
keep the :-Amiga's compatibility with video modes even when using off
the shelf :-cards.
good enough for Toaster style wizardry? it really is doing some
weird shit with the amiga, to say the least.. stuff they just
couldnt reproduce for the PC Toaster, so losing their real time
effects.
:-There are other areas. If any of these WebTV/netcomputers take off
:-then an Amiga system might well be able to slip in there quite :-
comfortably.
thats HiQ`s pet hope.
:-Eoghann :-(Celebrating the restoration of a Scottish parliament
after *300* :-years!)
:)
Paul
:-On 19 Sep 97 at 9:57, Alain Penders wrote: :-:-On Thu, Sep 18,
1997 at 08:28:35PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: :-:- :-:-:-But if you
arrange things so that cache, processors and RAM all go on :-:-:-one
board, as PIOS does, then you do allow the user to choose different :-
:-:-processors, as long as the boards are actually produced. You
still :-:-:-can't mix and match processors though - even making
something like :-:-:-PowerUP, which involves interfacing exactly two
processors of specific :-:-:-types, has proved to be a tough job.
:-But it should be possible. And indeed it is.
In fact, this is an area where the Amiga has excelled. The chips in
the chipsets can all be considered "AMP" "Asymetric MultiProcessing"
with the COPPER commands as an example of communication between the
radically different CPU's. In fact at the Denver Devcon, many got to
see ArtDept running with the acceleration provided by the ATT DSP
(where the VCOS real-time kernel of the DDSP was coupled to the Amiga
OS (I left off real-time label here to not upset some people ;-) )
and they shared the workload in a non-symmetric way.
This is an area where the Amiga could be advanced beyond what most
PC designers can yet imagine...
Have a socket or PIC that allows a Pentium or Alpha or whatever to
plug in, and just have the architecture allow communication between
systems in a "Amiga Standard" way. (AMP= Amiga Multi Processing)
:-:-Because they both sit directly on the CPU bus. If you make both
CPUs :-:-interface to a CPU independant bus (eg. PCI), you'd have alot
less :-:-problems. The Caphrina UMA seems a better design than PCI. I
have a bad taste in my mouth of PCI after losing more than a week of
work time trying to get them to configure in. Let us not forget the
elegance we have with AutoConfigTM.
PCI design is not yet complete. Intel can bleme MicroSoft for some
part of that.
Steve Shireman
On 20-Sep-97 05:48:14, Bob Cosby wrote about Re: [ICOA] What is
'Open'?:
:-I've noticed one phenomenon: Hand a man a hammer and all his
solutions :-start looking like nails. Software guys tend to look at
software :-solutions. Likewise the hardware techies look at hardware
first. If the :-Amiga ends up a software package then I'm going to
jump ship. I want :-both hardware and software innovation under one
roof.
Then you will only have options such as SGI in the future...
basically speaking.
The days when one company could both produce the OS and then some
special magic chips are over. Just imagine the cost of producing a GFX
chip that is better than the best ones from S3, Matrox, etc today. It
is *no point at all* to even think of that as the future for Amiga.
What AmigaOS can do instead is to offer a much better solution for
lots of problem with of the shelf products. I just read an article
about M$ delaying Win98 with six months only to add the code for
upgrading from Win 3.x to 98 and from Win95 (which is already
finished) in one package. My first question is "Why does it take them
*6 months* to fix a upgrade script/version from 3.x?" The only answer
I come up with is that it is shitty code, structure and planning from
M$.
AmigaOS is much better structured than most other OSes, enabling
easy upgrades from several generations back. This is somethinh AI must
keep in the OS.
I am sure this also will make it much easier to maintain the OS and
add new things. The more they think ahead, the easier will it be to
implement new things invented 2, 3, 5 years from now and that no one
even thought of today.
The magic you are looking for will instead be that you will be able
to use the off the shelf chips and products out there much better with
AmigaOS. If done in the Amiga spirit it will be much easier and better
to integrate new things in your system and get the most out of it.
If AmigaOS will start with this, it can then move on the take a
leading edge in exploring new areas of computer use. It will be much
easier for both AI and third party developers to develope and it will
cost a lot less to do it with a well structured and organized platform
than on a shitty structured platform and OS that it for the OS owner
takes 6 months to add an upgrade script for a two generation older
version of the same OS.
This will also make it possible for PD/SW developers to continue
doing stuff that takes large companies and a big budget to do on the
PC. Just look at all the internet software we have for the Amiga.
nearly 100% is PD/SW and the gap to whats on the PC is getting
smaller. That is because it is fun to program for the Amiga. I know
several PD/SW programmers doing great stuff who should have made tons
of money if they went over to PC. They keep developing on the Amiga
since it is more fun and they can make a living of it.
There you have it. As long as we can keep the Amiga fun to use, for
both us and the developers it will stick around. Now it is up to AI to
port this over to a new platform, make it cheeper to own an Amiga by
using of the shelf products, that at the same time offer us the
possibilities to keep up in hardware performance as the other
platforms. When AI can show that all these PCI cards for the PC does
much better if they are controlled by AmigaOS it will put everything
in a whole new situation.
To end this, it is not AI who tells you how you are going to use
your computer. They shall offer you a good and interesting solution
that offers you lots of possibilities. If they do, you get much more
options to make the best out of your investment. Even if the big card
producers doesn't develope drivers for AmigaOS in the beginning, you
will find others doing that. I at least think it is better to get an
option to use for example a Matrox Millennium II with AmigaOS instead
of a much more expensicive specially developed card for the Amiga that
probably wont give the same performance.
Then if AmigaOS offers a solution to really show of what cards like
that can do, I am sure some of them will make their own Amiga drivers,
show their cards with AmigaOS on shows to nock their competitors. AI
has already maid a deal with Epson, and have told me that we can
expect more of that in the future. I am sure they could make deals
with Matrox, Creative and some of the other de facto standard makers
to.
:-The days when one company could both produce the OS and then some
special :-magic chips are over. Just imagine the cost of producing a
GFX chip that is :-better than the best ones from S3, Matrox, etc
today.
Well I don't fully agree with this. I do agree that most people
look at today's PC's this way.
I think the focus of the OS development should be to make it as easy
as possible to add "magic chips" as they come along, or as people
develop them. The soft machine architecture provided by Exec I think
is the simplest design around, and allows even third-parties to add in
their subsystems with minimal software efforts.
I suspect Matrox has to waste a lot of their resources programming
their chips to work on arcane OS's.
I think a proper focus to enrich the Amiga would be to make it
easier to add in chips to the system.
The Amiga architecture allows many tiny companies, some of just one-
developer resources to produce phenomenal products.
I don't think the days where one company can produce OS and chips is
over unless the Amiga dies.
It is the committees and beaurocricies (sp) that have made it seem
impossible in the current days.
I think of Dick Van Dyke as the one man band in "Mary Poppins" as
the development team needed to develop on the Amiga Platform.
Steve Shireman
On Sep 22 Aric (Aric the Blue) wrote:
:-On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Shireman, Steve wrote: :- :-:-I think the
focus of the OS development should be to make it as easy as :-:-
possible to add "magic chips" as they come along, or as people develop
:-:-them. The soft machine architecture provided by Exec I think is
the :-:-simplest design around, and allows even third-parties to add
in their :-:-subsystems with minimal software efforts. :- :-I think
this exemplifies one of the most (if not the) important aspects of :-
the Amiga(OS): :- :-We've always extoled the virtues of a tight,
small, efficient OS (hardware :-too). AmigaOS is this. Is Windows?
MacOS? No. These OS's give you :-three million and one features in
one huge monolithic blob, focusing more :-on the outer layers (the
"gee whiz that looks nice") rather than on a real :-flexible and
efficient core. Hence MacOS never getting pre-emptive :-multitasking
and all the attendant side features of this -- they tried, :-gave up,
and bought NeXTStep.
Apple failed to make up for the mistakes of the past. Even at the
time Carl used to work for them (which was only about 2-3 years after
the Macintosh was introduced, if I remember correctly) they did not
have the courage to break away from their original operating system
implementation and adopt a more flexible concept (and breaking most of
the Macintosh applications available at that time).
:-AmigaOS lacks the "gloss" of other OS's. It doesn't give you
mountains of :-built in features. However, it DOES give you a great
framework to build :-features upon. And when a feature becomes a
proven one, it gets :-integrated as appropriate (see: ARexx, ARP,
etc).
Whoops. Euphemism alert. Operating system development virtually
ended in 1991 with V38. That was when the last 3rd party products were
licensed and integrated (ColorFonts, ARexx, ARP, CrossDOS,
Intellifont). AmigaOS did not take the path other mainstream operating
systems took because Commodore did not provide the funding and
eventually collapsed.
:-No, we don't have RTG built in. However, much of the necesary
hooks and :-API are there -- enough that third parties can patch in.
We've seen lots :-of different solutions now. It's an important
enough feature that, now, :-it should be integrated in, while looking
at all the pros and cons of :-existing systems. I don't think anyone
would argue against the need for :-RTG.
Please, this is a very bad example. All RTG systems plaster the
operating system with more patches than anyone would admit is sane.
There are no hooks for this purpose, it all has to be done through the
lowest operating system level method available, i.e.
exec.library/SetFunction. In addition to that, all RTG systems have to
peek and poke undocumented data structures which are bound to change
and move around with any new operating system version. Any such
software currently has to jump through hoops to deliver its
functionality.
:-AmigaOS development by AI should focus on these low-level type
features. :-Features that cause enterprising developers to think "wow,
that's neat, :-that gives me a great idea for...", and not "Oh well,
so much for that :-idea..." or "Nice feature but I could/did have done
it better"..
I agree that the operating system should provide the basic
"infrastructure" to allow for an easy integration of features like
RTG. However, I disagree that these means already exist. All this
needs consolidating. Another fine point is that technical
development continued while the Amiga played "Sleeping Beauty". In
1991 we didn't have the Internet as we know it today and quite some
then expensive hardware has become affordable and entered the
mainstream (take high speed modems and CD-ROM drives, for example).
Customers have come to expect that an operating system supports this
hardware and functionality, very much like everybody expects to have a
refridgerator and a TV set at home. The Amiga operating system is
obviously lacking in this area, and it's not just a question of
whether AmigaOS is "lean" rather than neglected.
AmigaOS Comments --------------
I have been meaning to write a response to some peoples' comments
about the AmigaOS and its 'way of doing things' versus Win95/NT etc.
It is true that we want more services in the OS, but I think most of
us would agree that we don't want the OS bloated either. If we follow
the Amiga's OS design, we can still have a well developed complete
operating system with many enhancements that's good for certain jobs
and not get fat! There are a few key considerations to getting such a
fat free result. The first way, as I have already mentioned, is to
continue in the spririt of the AmigaOS as it was designed in the past.
Shared libraries for instance, while not unique to the Amiga, are a
much better design than other methods saving memory and performance in
many ways, especially in a multi-tasking environment. The second way
to keep the OS 'Lite' is to continue that practical and smart design
philosophy when designing those libraries. For instance, certain
libraries such as Locale or Datatypes are great examples of how you
can add functionality to an OS without increasing its size
astronomically. I was sifting through the 50+ cdroms in the Windows
developer package the other day. Each disk is separate for each
language. One for Japanese, one for German, one for ... It was
incredible! Each program had different version numbers, different
languages ... Ack! The Amiga's example of using the Locale library is
a way to keep the operating system international and functional, but
more than keeping the AmigaOS on a few disks, it also allows for
programmers to add multiple languages easily and in a compact form to
their applications. I sincerely hope that we keep this factor in mind
while we discuss new features of the OS. There are ways to add
functionality in a compact form without lossing a lot of power -- and
if we do it smart, we can more flexibility and control than other
methods.
One other point that I have a concern about is that I am
constantly hearing ideas for new features for the OS, but I hear
little discussing on what is the target market for Amiga OS? Although
that is up to Amiga Inc and company, how can we discuss what features
should or should not be in the OS if we do not have a clear idea of
the future role of the OS? Can and should the AmigaOS be everything
to everyone? People are chatting about SQL, other about TCPIP, memory
protection, multi-user functionality,
The second market as I see it, it a 'PowerBox' for enthusiasts
and professionals. While these power machines would be a base to
develop for the lower-end NetPC Amiga, it can be molded for niche
markets. These professionals can also take advantage of the added
network connection abilities. Someone mentioned that a few machines
can be doing high-end CAD work attached to a nework -- maybe some
rendering or other image processing as well. Likewise, these markets
also are not too concerned whether it is Wintel compatible. They are
concerned with accomplishing a task and job quickly and for less money
preferably. I am certain that making such machines would meet the
needs of most 'power' Amiga users. By focusing on these markets
rather than trying to market it against Wintel Pentium home machines
etc, Amigas can slowly make there way into institutions and
corporations. Development can continue since there would be immediate
sources of cashflow and development would continue. With hardware
like that available, we are not going to be any worse off than we are
now for software choices -- and it is really not that bad currently.
Such an approach can help keep the Amiga a going concern and slowly
build up new markets. Sometimes it sounds like everyone wants to
take out Microsoft or SunSoft by the end of 1998 with some magical
AmigaOS. There are other approaches and I feel better choices that
will keep the Amiga alive by making money for its developers and
mother company, giving the computer world another choice for their
computing needs.
Regards,
-- James Ceraldi
[snip] :-:- :-:-:-AmigaOS lacks the "gloss" of other OS's. It
doesn't give you mountains of :-:-:-built in features. However, it
DOES give you a great framework to build :-:-:-features upon. And
when a feature becomes a proven one, it gets :-:-:-integrated as
appropriate (see: ARexx, ARP, etc). :-:- :-:- Whoops. Euphemism
alert. Operating system development virtually ended in :- :-Wasn't
ARexx, ColorFonts in there since 2.0 came out on the A3000? :- :-:-
1991 with V38. That was when the last 3rd party products were licensed
and :-:-integrated (ColorFonts, ARexx, ARP, CrossDOS, Intellifont).
AmigaOS did not :-:-take the path other mainstream operating systems
took because Commodore did :-:-not provide the funding and eventually
collapsed. :- :-Do you think AmigaOS would be a bloated monster
requiring 16MB of ram to :-run decently today if Commodore had
provided funding and didn't collapse? :- :-ARexx it seems to me was
included not because Commodore couldn't afford to :-do it themselfs
but because it was clearly a cool thing and was already :-there. Same
for colorfonts, crossdos and intellifont. :- :-At any rate, my point
was that we have a good core system that allows us :-to add cool
things onto, and that we should adopt some of these cool :-things as
official cool things once they have shown their usefullness :-
(regardless of whether Commodore really did that or not with ARexx
etc) [snip] :-:--- :-:-Home: Olaf Barthel, Brabeckstrasse 35, D-30559
Hannover :-:- Net: olsen@sourcery.han.de :-:- :- :--- :-Quod Scripsi
Scripsi :- :-
:-What would it take to put networking the ROMS? :- :-It is
feasible? OK, so it may not be worth it with todays Amigas and :-
prices, but we're supposed to be looking to the future right?
No problem. This was being done as part of the VIScorp Amiga box.
On the Amiga, it's not a difficult thing to do. (You might also want
to add NFS to the list, so the Amiga "thinks" it has a local disk.)
You also need a small non-volatile RAM to hold the TCP/IP configs,
user name, etc.
However, the problem is more in the marketing domain....
:-:->I take it that when your strategy pays off, you may not even
need :-:->the AA family chips (which are getting scarcer each day).
:-:-Excuse me for my ignorance, but what chips do people feel that are
best :-:-that can do the Genlocking and Video functions well? :-I
agree with Steve - the AA chips have certain important qualities :-and
benefits. It is fun to get immersed while controlling a laser disk
machine via AmigaVision or Scala with the GUI genlocked to the video.
Many PC user's have never had the chance to do this. I hope Jeff
Schindler has the chance someday...
One assumption I have heard more than once is that further
develpment of the chipset is not a thing to do. I do believe in
saving money by using off-the shelf technology when it is possible.
But that does not necessarily mean no ASIC type development, I hope.
Just because Jay Miner has died does not mean that there can not be
new visions even in the video frontier. Graphics are much more than
just a pixel/depth count. Of course, we should have it all.
I wish Cybervision had a video port, but it is just a DB15 VGA
connector, I think. Of course, this still gives you both, almost.
By now, if things hadn't slowed, I would expect that the Toaster
would be built into the AAAA chipset, and we would have a Video in
port right next to the Video out, and built-in Time-based correction.
Lots of things are _possible_. Let's kick some technical B_tt!
Think of the Scala transistions we would have if they hadn't wasted
so much money trying to develop for the Weinie Machine. I want MM500!!
Steve Shireman
Shireman, Steve wrote:
:-It is fun to get immersed while controlling a laser disk machine
via :-AmigaVision or Scala with the GUI genlocked to the video. Many
PC :-user's have never had the chance to do this. I hope Jeff
Schindler has :-the chance someday... :- :-One assumption I have heard
more than once is that further develpment of :-the chipset is not a
thing to do. I do believe in saving money by using :-off-the shelf
technology when it is possible. But that does not :-necessarily mean
no ASIC type development, I hope. Just because Jay :-Miner has died
does not mean that there can not be new visions even in :-the video
frontier. Graphics are much more than just a pixel/depth :-count. Of
course, we should have it all.
Thank you! My opinion is that the off-the-shelf stuff is fine for a
start but there's not a thing that says it can't be extended. It's
often forgotten that the original Amiga not only had hardware hooks
for genlocking but the OS did as well. No reason why we can't have
what the PCs have for basics but also include what made the Amiga
special.
Another area we might beat the Blue Flu to the punch is the new
digital video standard for broadcast TV which includes the wide screen
format. Picture Riven for the Amiga in wide screen...
:- :-By now, if things hadn't slowed, I would expect that the
Toaster would :-be built into the AAAA chipset, and we would have a
Video in port right :-next to the Video out, and built-in Time-based
correction. Lots of :-things are _possible_. Let's kick some
technical B_tt! :- :-Think of the Scala transistions we would have if
they hadn't wasted so :-much money trying to develop for the Weinie
Machine. :-I want MM500!!
Attaboy! The Amiga has to be SPECIAL to succeed. Coz
Hello all, I'm back.
To comment on a few threads:
Custom chips: -------------- Tim Jenison said this at the San Diego
Professional Video Toaster Users Group on 13th Nov: :-"I have my own
very personal reasons for why using that computer. :-That computer, by
sort of bizarre sets of circumstances ended up being
:-perfect for desktop video... The computer, as it ended up, had all
this :-amazing video circuitry in it. It was exactly NTSC frequencies
and it
:-had a genlock input. And it had a real-time operating system...
:-The technical aspects did not change and they have not changed till
:-this day. It is still the only computer that can scan an image
using :-NTSC time... It is the only computer with a real-time
operating system
:-that is closing keyed in to video time... In short, you could not
make
:-a Video Toaster that would run on a Mac or on a Pentium. It would
:-be impossible. The only way you can do it would be to have your :-
own processor on board that would have a real-time operating :-system
that was fast on switching on video clips."
When the Amiga switches over to using off the shelf chips will the
Amiga not suffer the same problem? I initally agreed with the idea
that the Amiga should keep it's custom chips but even now I agree off
the shelf chips should been used but I suggested a hybrid approach.
Rather than designing a new chip take an existing chip and modify it
to do your own thing, you can then produce a chip with specific video
(or other) additions no one else is producing. This is an approach I
wrote to the head of Gateway some months ago and these days lives
tucked away on my web site.
It all depends on what AI want to do with the Amiga, if they want to
produce a general purpose computer using non-modified custom chips may
be the best and possibly only option due to the costs involved.
Real Time OS -------------- I've heard the AmigaOS described as a
real time or near real time OS many times before. Given the speed
boost it will get from modern CPUs would it possible to make the
AmigaOS into a "proper" real time OS?
Steering committee members ----------------------------- The best
committee is one made up of 3 members, one of whom is away, and
another who is to ill to do anything :-)
Anyway wasn't that sorted out months ago?
-- Nicholas Blachford
On Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:33 PM, Shireman, Steve
[SMTP:sshireman@arcomcontrols.com] wrote: :->Real Time OS :->---------
----- :->I've heard the AmigaOS described as a real time or near real
time OS :->many times before. Given the speed boost it will get from
modern CPUs :->would it possible to make the AmigaOS into a "proper"
real time OS? :- :-Well, I have heard Tim Jennison refer to the Amiga
OS as Real time. :-The 1.3 RKM's (Exec chapter of Libraries) refer to
it as a Real Time OS. :-I even refer to it as such when I am not on
this list ;-)
It's not quite real time. It could be, but there was never an
overriding reason to make it so. might be able to come up with a few.
:-I have several products out that use commercial RTOS's (USX, MTOS,
etc) :-I can tell you that there is nothing in them that the Amiga
does not :-have in its architecture. But the Amiga API has some nice
features that :-these other commercial RTOS's do not have. The
messaging system in :-Amiga is very nice.
There are a number of very Exec-like kernels out there, including
the OS behind several phone switches, the 3DO game machine, and a
number of others. Most have taken the lessons of Exec to the next
level; all kept the low-cost messaging.
There is nothing available like Arexx in these :-other systems.
Almost any embedded system architect would kill to have :-this
functionality, and have it so small. (EmbeddedJava and Windows CE :-
will NEVER get there from there) But Exec is a very well kept secret.
Actually, Exec-like systems are around; a number of us have
implemented other operating systems with Exec-like characteristics.
andy
:-Real Time OS :--------------- :-I've heard the AmigaOS described
as a real time or near real time OS :-many times before. Given the
speed boost it will get from modern CPUs :-would it possible to make
the AmigaOS into a "proper" real time OS?
Well, I have heard Tim Jennison refer to the Amiga OS as Real time.
The 1.3 RKM's (Exec chapter of Libraries) refer to it as a Real Time
OS. I even refer to it as such when I am not on this list ;-)
It was designed to solve the real-world problems involved in having
a computer work with video and multimedia. Are there tougher problems
for a computer to solve? Not too, many, but if you scratch your navel
hard enough you might be able to come up with a few.
I have several products out that use commercial RTOS's (USX, MTOS,
etc) I can tell you that there is nothing in them that the Amiga does
not have in its architecture. But the Amiga API has some nice
features that these other commercial RTOS's do not have. The
messaging system in Amiga is very nice. There is nothing available
like Arexx in these other systems. Almost any embedded system
architect would kill to have this functionality, and have it so small.
(EmbeddedJava and Windows CE will NEVER get there from there) But
Exec is a very well kept secret.
As Amiga has evolved from 1.0->1.3->2.x->3.x there has been a
purification done to make the layers on top reduce the number of
forbid/permit and other locks that they do to the system. I pray that
this trend will continue. (There are forbids and permits in the
commercial code that RTOS's use as well, so what is "proper"?--it is
what is appropriate to the problem being solved)
These locks are an age old solution to the need to keep some
operations "atomic". There are solutions just waiting to be born.
Exec can be made even better. Just ask me. Steve Shireman
On Nov 22, Sam Stickland wrote:
|-------------------- text of forwarded message follows ------------
--------|
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable
text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-
aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more
info.
--1318631745-1636958159-880221843=:461 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN;
charset=US-ASCII
Hi,
I was intrigued by the comments by Tim Jenison that were posted to
this list, so I forwarded to the TeamOne (Pios) mailing list (David
known for replying to mails there). Here's what he said. I've
attached another relavent reply as well reply as well.
Sam
---------- Forwarded message ----------
:->... The computer, as it ended up, had all this :-:-amazing video
circuitry in it. It was exactly NTSC frequencies and it :-:-had a
genlock input. And it had a real-time operating system...
Tim's dead-nuts on here, especially with the point about a realtime
OS. Ok, you can bet he's right simply based on the fact NewTek did the
Toaster, did it on an Amiga, and no one has ever done something very
close to that on another platform. Or the fact he's worth about a
zillion bucks. But note especially the last sentence: "real-time
operating system...".
:-When the Amiga switches over to using off the shelf chips will the
Amiga :-not suffer the same problem?
"But note especially the last sentence: 'real-time operating
system...'".
I don't know much about the specifics of what the Toaster software
does, and of course, bits like Lightwave can, and do, run on the PC.
But clearly, whatever the Toaster software does, it's doing it as a
performance. I have been saying for too, too many years that the PC
community misses on multimedia for one basic reason: real, performance
quality multimedia is a realtime, multitasking problem. If you don't
have a realtime, multitasking OS to run your MM applications upon, in
the general case, it just plain won't work. So while some of the bits
you get from the Toaster's software suite run on the PC (and cost near
as much as the whole Toaster system), it stands to reason that you
would run into trouble trying to support the system as a whole.
But that's fundamentally a software issue. All of the hardware
functions that made the Amiga's multitasking OS efficient on the Amiga
are now present in commodity hardware: lots of DMA, lots of
interrupts, etc. If you don't try to run in MS-DOS mode, even a
Pentium can support the same or better efficiency of multitasking. So
why aren't the pieces there? The OS, of course. I'm actually quite
amazed when Amiga fans, with all their devotion to the Amiga, ignore
in their minds the effect of the OS and imagine it's somehow all
software. Sure, you wouldn't get great multitasking performance on the
PC of 1985, but take a look; that was 12 years ago, things have
changed.
On the software side, some multimedia stuff, like computer games or
audio/MIDI and even consumer video work today runs on a Windows PC, so
you're tempted to ask why a toaster might not. You need to look closer
at the problem. Windows 95 is not a realtime system in any stretch of
the imagination. But given enough determinisim in an unloaded system,
it's not that hard to get a realtime response enough to get a job done
in a particular case. Games look realtime, but they aren't -- you
don't fail if a particular animation slips by frame (a video
production does, at least if the system is being honest). Audio is low
bandwidth enough to work ok in Windows -- you can playback 8-12
channels of digital audio at CD/DAT rates, and a number of synched
MIDI channels, with professional quality accuracy. But put this in
prespective; with a proper 16-bit audio board, you could do this on an
Amiga 2500/030 back in '89 or so. Under OS/2, you couldn't even
accurately play back MIDI, something a C64 did just dandy (and a PC
can manage well beyond 16 MIDI ports at once in other OSs, though a
long standing bug in Windows cripples current systems to a max of 10
or so ports).
As for the video support, Tim has a point. The Amiga 2000 was
designed specifically to handle video support cards, such as the
toaster. We put video-synched signals, genlock control, all 13-bits of
digital video, etc, on that video slot. While there are video-capable
graphics cards that do a better NTSC output than the Amiga, you don't
usually get access to the same signals. Any video clocks would have be
synthesized :-from the pixel
But put something like the BeOS on a PowerPC or even x86 system with
modern I/O subsystems and you'll have a system as
I initally agreed with the idea that the :-Amiga should keep it's
custom chips but even now I agree off the shelf :-chips should been
used but I suggested a hybrid approach. Rather than :-designing a new
chip take an existing chip and modify it to do your own :-thing, you
can then produce a chip with specific video (or other) :-additions no
one else is producing. This is an approach I wrote to the :-head of
Gateway some months ago and these days lives tucked away on my :-web
site. :- :-It all depends on what AI want to do with the Amiga, if
they want to :-produce a general purpose computer using non-modified
custom chips may :-be the best and possibly only option due to the
costs involved. :- :-[My Comments: Would it really be impossible to
do the Video Toaster on an :-x86 clone? Why is this - is it actaully
to do with the graphics hardware :-or is it the actual system design:
crappy interrupt handling etc.? I'm not :-a hardware guy, so I'm not
sure - Dave?] :- :-Real Time OS :--------------- :-I've heard the
AmigaOS described as a real time or near real time OS :-many times
before. Given the speed boost it will get from modern CPUs :-would it
possible to make the AmigaOS into a "proper" real time OS? :- :-[My
comments - AFAIK the AmigaOS can't be classifed as a RTOS, unless it
:-gets given a QoS (Quality of Service), and GRTs (Garanteed responce
:-time) and for the later Forbid() proves a problem... guess you could
call :-it effectively real-time IF you choose your software carefully]
:- :----End Forwarded message--- :- :-I got this from the ICOA mailing
list as well: :- :-"HAM is both doable and desireable. It's doable if
the RAMDAC is external :-to the display controller. Desireable since
you can look at it a 3 to 1 :-compression of video data that
decompresses in realtime." :- :-The Copper is a problem, but again
very desireable. With even a very :-simple version of the Copper,
frame syncronization becomes much easier :-and alot less costly in
terms of CPU cycles." :- :-So, is there some useful stuff in the Amiga
chipset after all? :- :-Sam
Dave Haynie | V.P. Technology, PIOS Computer | http://www.pios.de
Be Dev #2024 | DMX2000 Powered! | Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000, PIOS One
"Take my hand, we're off to never-never land." -Metallica
Andy Finkel wrote: :- :-On Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:33 PM,
Shireman, Steve :-[SMTP:sshireman@arcomcontrols.com] wrote: :-:->Real
Time OS :-:->-------------- :-:->I've heard the AmigaOS described as a
real time or near real time OS :-:->many times before. Given the
speed boost it will get from modern CPUs :-:->would it possible to
make the AmigaOS into a "proper" real time OS? :-> :-:-Well, I have
heard Tim Jennison refer to the Amiga OS as Real time. :-:-The 1.3
RKM's (Exec chapter of Libraries) refer to it as a Real Time OS. :-:-I
even refer to it as such when I am not on this list ;-) :- :-It's not
quite real time. It could be, but there was never an overriding :-
reason to make it so. :-might be able to come up with a few. :- I'd
like to point our that I -still- see PCs, even with a decent speed
Pentium and fast video card still pause briefly when in the middle of
displaying an anim.The system needs to to do some housekeeping and it
shows. As an example, I have a 166MHz Pentium with a 128-bit Hercules
video card and when doing a semi-full screen anim in Riven I still see
brief pauses. I've seen this same phenomenon in faster MMX systems
too. So AmigaOS/hardware is pretty damned "real-time" in my book! 8^D
Coz
On 22 Nov 97 at 1:11, Nicholas Blachford wrote: :-Joshua B. Wingell
wrote: :- :-Actually attempting to keep HAM and the like didn't even
enter my mind, I :-don't see the point in trying to be backwards
compatible in hardware, if this :-is wanted it can be done in software
as UAE has shown.
It's not really about remaining compatible but about keeping
features:
HAM - hardware decompression method bitplanes - offering features
like multiple playfields and faster blitting on a subset
of them Copper - providing raster-synced precision/action
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Nicholas Blachford wrote:
:-The problem is as always cost, Special features cost money... :-
:-Ultimately some features must be hardware but is this so of all of
them? Is :-software emulation not possible in some cases? I was
reading that the :-licensed version of the Amiga emulator has managed
to get dragable screens :-working on a PC!
I know this is possibly off-topic but....
Yes, that correct. However it's slow. This is UAE with full custom
chip emulation (ie. no RTG to the native machine's graphics card). To
give you an idea, I use UAE on a 233MHz P2, with an 8Mb Matrox
Millenium graphics card - it runs at about the same speed as an A1200
with fast RAM.
Of course, that with the full OCS (ECS?) chipset emulation - I doubt
that the screen dragging is sucking all the power ;)
Sam
Apologies to everyone for the discussion length. :-First, I was just
correcting the incorrect definition of real time operating :-system
that was being used. Andy. There is no one single definition for
real-time (thus the Alice in Wonderland phenomenon will always exists,
and helps to fire off these rants, since real-time means different
things to different people). Of the 6 RTOS books laying about my
office, no two are the same even in how they approach the difficult
task to define what is meant by real-time, and I only saw one that
used your 'correct' definition. Of course my favorite definition is
the one from the RKM Exec chapter. Since the proper Real-time
constraints have to be selected for each application, there will
always be differences in professional opinions.
:-Second, there are no current RTOS goals; the goals are still
being formulated :-as I understand it. Well, then, I can hope that
the granularity of the OS is reduced, and RTOS performance might
improve. If I say things creatively enough, maybe I can get another
section created on the ICOA web site like what happened with my my AMP
rant ;-) How about ARTOS? Now that seems catchy to me.
:-Third, while making the AmigaOS real time is possible, it would be
necessary to :-have good solid reasons 'why' first. Jeff Porter
understood why, as I discussed this with him at Orlando Devcon, as
well as earlier Devcons, the subject of RTOS seemed well-understood by
the Exec Gurus I discussed it with. (Bryce Nesbitt discussions, and a
Mike Sinz conference) Jeff Porter knew even then that Microsoft was
working toward the embedded market (with what I presume is now called
WindowsCE), as the potential numbers of embedded real-time systems
far exceeds the Desktop numbers, and at least that thought had
infected some in the ranks of Commodore-Amiga engineering.
I am very pleased that the licensing by Amiga Inc has opened up the
possibility of very low cost hardware for the OS to run on. As long
as Exec doesn't get botched up in the future I will be mildly happy.
In fact, Exec could be made better, and less granular, as well as the
rest of the system libraries. I pray often for this when I can't
sleep.
I have an internet appliance application that runs using the
commercial package USX Multitask. (which is advertised as a RTOS).
The product would be greatly enhanced to run on Exec, rather than
Multitask. Does Multitask have any features or guarantees of operation
that is better than AmigaOS? Absolutely not. It is much easier to
violate real-time latency on this commercial RTOS than it is with
AmigaOS. Andy, part of our difference in opinions is that I am
speaking of Real RTOS's, and you are speaking of textbook RTOS's.
The 'solutions' for Real-Time designers in the marketplace right now
are poor to rotten (IMHO). This is another way to say, "Niche Market
Opportunity" But I see it as an area where a single developer would
have trouble without 'mothership' support.
:-Forth, if you're going to choose goals, it helps a lot to know why
you are :-choosing goals. How about greed? How about to expand some
existing control, and also up and coming niche markets? PLC's and
virtual PLC's (which I have been asked to design) have over a $10
billion market. I wouldn't mind a .000l % piece of that market. (a .1
MilliNiche)
I see value in being able to label our OS with your "textbook"
definition of real-time (and call it ARTOS=Amiga Real Time Operating
System), that can undergo the scrutiny of the control
industry/internet appliance markets, etc. It would be nice to have
latency numbers (and quality numbers as well) to advertise that one
could competively compare with the numbers (we have it, so let's
flaunt it!) that Microsoft is claiming with WindowsCE, and what
EmbeddedJava will claim.
Steve Shireman
On Wednesday, November 26, 1997 12:47 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: :-
And why can't that be done by dividing a single screen into panels?
That :-would be more flexible and easier to use for the sysop. There
really :-don't seem to be many cases where using draggable screens is
a better :-solution than using a panelled window/screen or separate
draggable :-windows.
:-There are plenty of features that are merely incidental, that
aren't :-really worth implementing in future OS versions. Draggable
screens :-probably *are* worth implementing merely for backwards
compatibility, but :-I think they should be deprecated by the next
Style Guide as the technical :-limitations that made the feature so
important no longer seem to exist.
Paneled windows ARE currently supported by our software as well.
My main concern here is my consumer's configuration and preference.
Many use the latter method and many others use the former. Whether or
not a feature was incidental in the first place is irrelevant once
users have become accustomed to using it.
Just for the sake of argument.. myself, I use the draggable screen
in "half-lace" mode and have 4 ports (2 dial-up and 2 Telnet) visible
at the same time, for monitoring of my system.
-- Ray A. Akey - Partner in ZenMetal Software Developer of CNet
Amiga Professional BBS WWW: http://www.tggh.net/~rakey E-MAIL:
rakey@netrover.com
Subject: Re: [ICOA] Next Amiga
From: index@cix.compulink.co.uk (Index Information) Subject: Re: [ICOA] The new AmigaOS and "ease-of-use".
From: Eoghann Irving Subject: [ICOA] Multirange Colorcycling & a New IFF Standard
From: Doug Peters Subject: Re: [ICOA] [2W] [SECOND-WIND] AI "plans"
From: Aric the Blue Subject: Re: [ICOA] [2W] [SECOND-WIND] AI "plans"
From: Doug Peters Subject: Re: [ICOA] OASYS: Multi-User DOS (was OS Modularity)
From: peterk@combo.ganesha.com (Dr. Peter Kittel) Subject: Re: [ICOA] New Direction
From: index@cix.compulink.co.uk (Index Information) Subject: Threads thread
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: Re: New AmigaOS in December? We hope so!
From: midian@azstarnet.com Subject: Re: New AmigaOS in December? We hope so!
From: Hans-Joerg Frieden Subject: Re: New AmigaOS in December? We hope so!
From: Fredrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lundstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: Worrying news...
From: "Olaf Barthel" Subject: WindowsCE
From: "yvind Segrov" Subject: Re: [ICOA] Re: [2W] Coalescing Forces (fwd)
From: Darren Eveland Subject: Coalescing Forces :-> :-:-You mention the Amiga and it
is a good case in point as to how, in :-:-the market-place, it is not
always true exellence that wins out. :-:-Not unlike the famed case of
the Tucker or Avanti cars, the Amiga, :-:-was way ahead of its time.
It took MS 10 years to get anywhere near
From: Giorgio Gomelsky Subject: RE: WindowsCE and amiga in embeded systems
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: WindowsCE and amiga in embeded systems
From: "yvind Segrov" Subject: RE: WindowsCE
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: Re: New online help
From: "Charles Patterson" Subject: RE: Recommendations
From: "Olaf Barthel" Subject: [ICOA] RE: Amiga UI
From: keser@duke.usask.ca (erich keser) Subject: Re: [ICOA] RE: Amiga UI
From: Clash Bowley Subject: Re: [2W] M-PLAN
From: fleecy Subject: Re: [ICOA] Thoughts regarding icons and current
workbench
From: "Dr. Peter Kittel" Subject: Re: [ICOA] Thoughts regarding icons and current
workbench
From: Ray Akey Subject: Re: [ICOA] Chip RAM: was AmigaOS OKish ..
From: Andrew Basden Subject: Re: Comuter Interfaces (was Re: [ICOA] Installer)
From: peterk@combo.ganesha.com (Dr. Peter Kittel) Subject: RE: [ICOA] [ICOA} Registries (Was Icons etc.)
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: Re:
Subject: Re: [ICOA] System DBase (aka registry)
From: keser@duke.usask.ca (erich keser) Subject: RE: [ICOA] System DBase (aka registry)
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: RE: Digest newdev.v001.n356 and n357
From: Staffan Hamala Subject: Re: [ICOA] Reaching out to other companies.
From: pnolan@cix.compulink.co.uk (Paul Nolan) Subject: RE: [ICOA] Processors
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: Re: [ICOA] What is 'Open'?
From: Thomas Svenson Subject: RE: [ICOA] What is 'Open'?
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: RE: [ICOA] What is 'Open'?
From: "Olaf Barthel" Subject: [ICOA] AmigaOS 80% less fat than other leading brands
From: James Ceraldi Subject: ===to go into ami.diffnt
From: Andrew@basden.demon.co.uk (Andrew Basden) (Andrew Basden) Subject: Re: [ICOA] Networking?
From: Carl Sassenrath Subject: RE: [ICOA] AA chips ends, at last... Please don't sneer
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: Re: [ICOA] AA chips ends, at last... Please don't sneer
From: Bob Cosby Subject: [ICOA] Killing many birds with one stone...
From: Nicholas Blachford Subject: RE: [ICOA] Killing many birds with one stone...
From: Andy Finkel Subject: RE: [ICOA] Killing many birds with one stone...
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: ====save[ICOA] Comments from Dave Haynie (fwd)
From: Subject: Re: [ICOA] Killing many birds with one stone...
From: Bob Cosby Subject: Re: [ICOA] Killing many birds with one stone...
From: "Dr. Peter Kittel" Subject: Re: [ICOA] Niche markets: was:ICOA SC - only software
guys?
From: Sam Stickland Subject: RE: [ICOA] Killing many birds with one stone...
From: "Shireman, Steve" Subject: Re: [ICOA] Niche markets: was:ICOA SC - only software
guys?
From: "Ray Akey"
Copyright (c) Andrew Basden
1997, and also all those who have written the above pieces.