20-Apr-2024 06:31 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 82 items in your selection (but only 32 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 82]
[News] Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketingANN.lu
Posted on 29-Nov-2001 01:16 GMT by Teemu I. Yliselä82 comments
View flat
View list
Cloanto stated their opinion about AmigaXL marketing, which they feel has been misleading. They also released a comparison of Amiga Forever and "other solutions".
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 51 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Nov-2001 20:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Graham):
hum and uae is based on a windows machine being xp or anything else which is a dos shell. It cant multitask try and get it to it wont. I have played with it all.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 52 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by ShAwn on 29-Nov-2001 20:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (JW):
THank you JW You are right on target
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 53 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 29-Nov-2001 21:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (ShAwn):
I am sick of you. One search on Google will bring up a thousand identical descriptions on what multitasking is. The ability to run many tasks seemingly at the same time. Pretty much like making toast while boiling the kettle and washing a mug at the same time.
Give me links that prove your idea of what is Multitasking. Give me more links than I can for my description. Give me your qualifications to talk about how operating systems work.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 54 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Nov-2001 21:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Graham):
MR smart ass naw not going to sink to your level .JW wrote on it and if you dare go to a reall AMIGA news group you would find out they agree with me and jw. SEcond
I read those so called defintions . They have been redfined the mickysoft way.
Next you are going to say perfect is 99% proof not 100% proof.
In the Unix news groups and anywhere ther is a real engineer the realdefiton is this:
The True defintion of multitasking is to do two or more things at once at
the same time in real-time.
not seemingly but at the same time.
dam I will not respond to idiotic reponses such as your which have no proof what so ever. Wher as mine does.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 55 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Nov-2001 22:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (JW):
Jw dont worry about Graham and others like him. they are full of it.
You know paul on the AMIGa news site. email him your email address. I would like to talk.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 56 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Keith_Blakemore-Noble on 29-Nov-2001 23:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Anonymous):
In that case, by your rather unique definition of multitasking, not even the Amiga multitasks.
OTOH, Windows, which has built-in support for multiple processors, obviously does multitask per your rather unique definition.
your call.
(I can't believe I'm replying to a troll...)
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 57 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Donovan Reeve on 30-Nov-2001 01:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Peter Gordon):
I agree. I use both IBrowse and NetScape, and IBrowse is generally nicer
to use. Another good thing is that in IBrowse, a requester up doesn't keep
you from surfing on another page, such as to look something up related to
a file requester before filling it out. There are several aspects I prefer
about IBrowse despite its limitations.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 58 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by tinman on 30-Nov-2001 02:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
Again? You really need a slap. Why don't /you/ go read how multitasking is done, and /then/ go read how multiprocessing is done.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 59 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Douglas McLaughlin on 30-Nov-2001 04:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Anonymous):
You are arguing semantics. In other words, arguing for the sake of arguing. There is so little difference in the two versions of multitasking as to be worth mentioning. In human terms, there is ZERO difference. So, what is your REAL point in making your argument?
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 60 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 30-Nov-2001 04:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Anonymous):
You are so funny :)
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 61 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Nov-2001 05:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 56 (Keith_Blakemore-Noble):
nope not at all the troll is you. so you cant think of a better name .Which prove s my point you cant think for yourself. No to Multitaskin you dont even know waht it is . I have described it and so has jw. Its people liek you that give AMIGA a bad nama. AS for naem calling a bit childish . ALso you assume Im her or him. Which shows you how little you know.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 62 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Nov-2001 05:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (tinman):
totally two differnt animals go get the book and read it yourself ,oops I forgot you rather kiss ass then realize the truth. What a great comeback had to use my own words sad really sad.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 63 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Nov-2001 05:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (Douglas McLaughlin):
THE direct opposite read again study harder before you foolishly open your mouth.
Humans are the only one that can truly multitask. When comparing just computers The AMIga can the rest cant.
Time sharing is technically mulititasking but not true multitasking. So we are disussing to tell the truth in my case. Others I dont know. SO its not "who cares". That is what the wintel wants you to think. Thaats how they redifined the word multimedia ,rel-time , and multitasking.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 64 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Solar (BAUD) on 30-Nov-2001 06:45 GMT
Running several threads on *one* CPU, timeslice, so they *look* to be running parallel, is called multitasking.
Running several threads on *multiple* CPUs, in parallel, is called multiprocessing, or parallel computing.
Using dedicated chips (like DSPs, GPUs, or "Custom Chips") to relieve the CPU of certain tasks is *neither* multiprocessing *nor* multitasking, since none of these additional chips could run a *generic* programming thread. This approach is by no way unique to the Amiga. T&L GPUs on PCI/AGP gfx boards or the DSPs on your average PCI soundcard do just the same job, technically, as Alice, Lisa, and Paula in your A1200/A4000.
The above is common CS knowledge and terminology. No matter how loud you scream and shout won´t change the meaning of "multitasking", it only shows what kind of wannabe-"expert" you are.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 65 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Solar (BAUD) on 30-Nov-2001 06:46 GMT
Oh, and the above terminology was used that way before a company named Microsoft was even founded, so don´t give me that conspiracy BS.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 66 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Brecht [darklite] on 30-Nov-2001 08:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Anonymous):
>dam I will not respond to idiotic reponses such as your which have no proof
>what so ever. Wher as mine does.
rofl. This one goes into my YAM taglines list :)
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 67 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Peter Gordon on 30-Nov-2001 10:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (Solar (BAUD)):
I agree with Solar, not because I *THINK* he is right, but because he *IS* right!
So everyone else, go and read some books :)
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 68 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 30-Nov-2001 12:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 67 (Peter Gordon):
I think that "Anonymous" and "Anonymous" and "JW" and "Shawn" think that true multitasking computers have some kind of dynamic CPU addition mechanism... Unix fork() on these beasts must be slow...
1 fork();
2 alert adminstrator: need new CPU
3 administrator inserts new CPU
4 task can now run
Still, they are pure trolls. Hiding as anonymous (one good reason to bad anonymous posting in my opinion), with spelling worse that a 6 year old, and saying that their proof is what they say. Sad idiots.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 69 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 30-Nov-2001 12:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 63 (Anonymous):
Troll.
Microsoft have not redefined real-time. They don't claim that their operating systems are real-time. And the definition of real-time is the ability to guarantee a response to an event/interrupt within a specified time period. Hard real-time systems are usually designed around the task that they are running, not the other way around.
Multitasking, as Solar said, was defined in its current meaning before Microsoft existed.
And as for humans multitasking. Show me. You will find yourself switching between the tasks anyway... talking and walking does not count. Try thinking and thinking at the same time...
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 70 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Peter Gordon on 30-Nov-2001 14:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 69 (Graham):
> try thinking and thinking at the same time
LOL!! :D
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 71 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Ville Sarell on 30-Nov-2001 17:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 (Anonymous):
Whow, you use some random word generator there? It makes no sense..
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 72 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Ville Sarell on 30-Nov-2001 17:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 (Anonymous):
But if you have problems writing for real, then I'm sorry. I just wasn't thinking enough.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 73 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by victor # on 30-Nov-2001 18:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (Anonymous):
Dear Anonymus,
I'm a programmer and hardware designer also for Amiga OS+HW.
It seems you think the Amiga is some MAGIC BOX that do IMPOSSIBLE things. Like to REALLY execute several codes REALLY at the SAME TIME on ONLY ONE CPU.
The Amiga OS has some method termed (in Computer Science) "preemptive multitasking". IT BY DEFINITION MEANS *ONE* KIND OF TIME SLICING, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T OTHERWAYS EXECUTE SEVERAL PROGRAMS *LIKE IF THEY WERE* EXECUTED PARALELLY.
It's true that certain (older) OS'es can't do preeptive multitasking (but only cooperative), but neither they claims they can. They claim they do cooperative multitasking, and who knows the difference knows if it bad or not. (Of course, it is bad.)
Well, there ARE now also other OS'es that do preemptive multitasking, like it or not. IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE CPU. It's true that some CPU's are more "optimized" for it (but only through their addressing modes), but it only affects code-size. (Of course, *besides to it*, an OS can be more or less usable, friendly, smart, etc.)
I think most people here has more or less deep technical knowledge in computers, EXCLUDING YOU. It's YOU who know nothing and belive in bullshit just because OTHERS told you so. It's YOUR BLIND FAITH is that makes others think the Amiga-community is a bunch of stupid fanatics, which most of them are not.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 74 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Nov-2001 21:10 GMT
Of course, I meant for today's CPU's, architectures. It's known that f.ex. older PC systems (with their 640k limit + paging, etc.) wasn't created with multitasking (indeed not preemptive) in mind... But, AFAIK, this is not an issue with today's PC's, not mentioning other, professional systems.
Though, it's questionable, how WinXP runs programs written for the cooperative environments (W9x, Me)...
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 75 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by victor # on 30-Nov-2001 21:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Anonymous):
forgot the name.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 76 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Keith_Blakemore-Noble on 30-Nov-2001 21:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 (Anonymous):
"No to Multitaskin you dont even know waht it is."
As you wish, Trollm as you wish...
"I have described it and so has jw."
Not exactly. You have attempted to describe a rather flawed and incorrect
definition for multitasking and got it wrong (but then, what else can you
expect as you know nothing of the subject).
"Its people liek you that give AMIGA a bad nama."
liek? nama?
You are J3ffK and I claim my five pounds/dollars/euros!
"ALso you assume Im her or him. Which shows you how little you know."
Well, yes, I assumed you are either male or female. Sorry to have got it
wrong - does this mean you are a haemaphrodite, or a script?
Now run along and play with the traffic - leave the technical stuff to the
grown-ups, OK?
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 77 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Donovan Reeve on 01-Dec-2001 01:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 69 (Graham):
You took the words right out of my mouth! :)
I was just thinking (and thinking :) about typing something along those lines
only I was going to say "try thinking two thoughts at the same time" However,
your words are better because they have a double meaning.
Humans have only one main processor for conscious thought processes (albeit
a VERY sofisticated and complex one), but millions of co-processors to handle
all of the lower level stuff (from breathing to reflexes). Therefor, we must
also use time-slice methods for multitasking. We do however multitask many
more programs at a time than any computer or even computer network can.
(except when we are drunk, high, sick, preocupied, tired, in love or taking
a test). ;)
I sometimes envy computers having to run only one or a few programs at a time.
My long-term memory is better than a CD rom disk, but my short term memory
is worse than any computers as it sometimes blanks even when I am not shut down.
;)
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 78 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Donovan Reeve on 01-Dec-2001 02:01 GMT
Even though Anonymous is mistaken about the science involved in multi-tasking,
I still prefer him (or her) to most of the other anonymous's who argue on this
list. At least he (or she) seems to like Amigas!
Don't loose your enthusiasm, Anonymous. But be careful of your facts.
FRIENDS!!! OK?
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 79 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by victor # on 01-Dec-2001 03:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 77 (Donovan Reeve):
> Humans have only one main processor for conscious thought processes
Sorry, I do not agree. There are wast amounts of brain-cells of which activity you can affect. Conscious is what you make conscious at the very moment. (And I speak about thought processes, like the kinds of imagination, not things like heartbeat-rate.)
People CAN consciously listen to several things, though, it can be hard, depending on the subject. F.ex. you can listen to (and enjoy) music, while tasing something, and so on. Of course, it is harder to listen to/think about several instances of the same kind, but not impossible. It is a question of concentration, and practice. And of course, that how much can you extend your conscious mind.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 80 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Bernd Meyer on 02-Dec-2001 14:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Desmon):
>The reason for the speed claims for
>Amithlon are the lack of chipset emulation.
That's not true. The reason Amithlon is so fast is that it has a more optimized JIT compiler that does a few more rather funky things.
These funky things are only *possible* because of the lack of chipset emulation. However, simply removing chipset emulation doesn't magically make them happen, it takes many many long nights of high-octane hacking and debugging to exploit the new possibilities that exist without the chipset emulation.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 81 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by Solar (BAUD) on 03-Dec-2001 13:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Anonymous):
@ victor #:
> It's known that f.ex. older PC systems (with their 640k limit + paging,
> etc.) wasn't created with multitasking (indeed not preemptive) in mind...
There was never such a thing as a *hardware* 640k limit. The limit was 1 MByte, imposed by the 8088 CPU only having 20 address lines. This was arbitrarily split into 640k and "the rest" by MS-DOS (640k for OS and applications, "the rest" for memory-mapped I/O like screen output).
The problem was *how* MS-DOS implemented this split, making it impossible to change this implementation without breaking downward compatibility - to the point of even the PIV still supporting the A20 gate hack...
> But, AFAIK, this is not an issue with today's PC's, not mentioning other,
> professional systems.
As I said, the hardware was never the real problem.
> Though, it's questionable, how WinXP runs programs written for the
> cooperative environments (W9x, Me)...
Sorry, but even if we would very much like it otherwise, the Win9x multitasking *is* preemptive. (The fact that it´s so horribly done is because they didn´t redesign the GUI messaging from scratch, dragging a lot of Win3.11 legacy with them.)
MacOS 9 is the last OS I know of having cooperative multitasking.
Cloanto critisize AmigaXL marketing : Comment 82 of 82ANN.lu
Posted by victor # on 04-Dec-2001 00:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 81 (Solar (BAUD)):
I'm not deeply in the PC/x86 fields. I heard there is some issue also about CPU modes (normal, protected, etc.), also in contact with memory. And AFAIK, some "extended memory manager" still have to run in the background, at least in the Win9x, Me series, that manages memory-access above 1MB.
> Sorry, but even if we would very much like it otherwise, the Win9x
> multitasking *is* preemptive. (The fact that it´s so horribly done is
> because they didn´t redesign the GUI messaging from scratch, dragging
> a lot of Win3.11 legacy with them.)
Uhhmm! Really? How... lamers they are! This was a sin!
Anyway, something certainly causes that many times the system behaves like if some routine (other than the GUI, or even other that the OS) has been lost in some inside loop, for a while. Like few msec to even several seconds, or more, freezing the whole system in between. So, it feels like if it were cooperative. Or, we could say, it is partly so...
Anyway, there were paging sometime, and that not at all were favourable to fast task scheduling methods, and everything based on that. I wouldn't surprised at all if some(?) code segments were dragged even into the XP, like, as you said, into the 9x series...
So, AmigaOS could easily run better on today's PC's that even the XP... :)
Anonymous, there are 82 items in your selection (but only 32 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 82]
Back to Top