Amiga 3000UX, X, OpenLook, Motif, Color, A2410, Etc. (somewhat long)

[Chris Hanson]

    Background: I am a salesperson at The Computer Room, in Denver, CO. We've
had 3000UX's since day 1, and in fact, it appears we were one of the first
stores to get them for retail. We have Beta3j software right now. These are
some of my questions/consternations.

    1) Why Black & White XWindows? The 3000, and indeed all Amiga models, is/
are capable of 4096 colors, 16 at a time in the most useful resolutions. But
yet the top-of-the-line, most expensive, flagship computer of the Amiga line
has software limiting it to 2-color. (Or shall I say, 2 pre-selected shades
of grey, namely BLACK and WHITE). GfxBase has shown (with their Amiga
XWindows terminal system) that it is quite possible to do a snappy 16-color
X display. With the Amiga's reputation for excellent graphics, it is a real
injury to step down to this Mac-Plus-Wannabe mode to use XWindows. I have
heard that color X will not be available without the A2410 board. If so, why?
Is this some sort of sick marketing move to drum up support for the 2410? I'd
already love to have a 2410, and I don't think this sort of tactic is
necessary.

    2) I understand that AT&T has defined Open Look to be the standard window
manager for System V Release 4. Fine by me, I've ignored dumb standards
before in favor of better solutions, and so has most of the rest of the
world. (We bought Amiga, didn't we? Lose that MS-DOS standard.) When can I
perhaps expect Motif 1.x (preferably 1.1, please! ;) to be available? I have
seen such notes on this network tht say that German developers have a
preliminary version operating, but that Commodore-Amiga is saying nothing
concerning when or even IF this will be available. My essential question is
this: Should I start the port myself, or is there a reasonable possibility
that it will be done by Commodore-Amiga?

    3) Much the same question applies to X11R4. I have heard it stated
unofficially on the net that the version 2.0 of Amiga Unix will include X11
Release 4. Is this true? (Is anyone listening to me? ;)

    4) Carrying on the Unix version 2.0 thread, it has also been said that
version 2.0 will allow the user to rebuild the kernal, like any other self-
respecting Unix package. Is this reasonably close to being fact?

    5) When will the wonderous 2.0 release be available? (If in fact it is
more than a net-myth.) Please don't say "soon", because your idea of soon, my
idea of soon, and in fact, the Dali Lama's idea of soon are probably
seperated by a large margin of difference. Besides, I can't sell ANYBODY a
3000UX if the only promise I can make of solving their doubts is "A new
version will be available ...soon... that fixes feature z..."

    6) We're running Unix on a 4 fast/2 chip A3000/25 with 100 meg drive and
320 meg external. I know Unix is _expected_ to be a real memory-pig, but by
the time the system comes up and allows me to login to the ksh, I am already
paging about 2 megabytes. Is this normal?

    7) I have also run a rough benchmarking program (that supposably computed
drystones per second) on the 3000UX/25, an 030 NeXT, and a DTK 80386/25
running ESIX SysV R3.2.2. The NeXT averaged about 9000, the 386 about 12000,
and the 3000 got about 3200. For comparison, the 3200 reading was from code
compiled with the AT&T cc compiler. Compiling the same source with the GNU
gcc compiler netted us a figure of over 6500. Much better, but still not
fantastic. You figure. Is this normal? The program is not a memory intensive
benchmark, so swapping should not have been a real problem. Can someone
perhaps post benchmarks/benchmark programs to the contrary?

    8) The 3000 (and UX) both have a very slick memory-processor
architecture (Thank you, Dave Haynie!), but I have long wondered why a
off-processor cache system was not implemented. The 68030's internal cache is
too small to be of much use in Unix, and it's duty in AmigaDOS seems to be to
point fingers at those game programmers who used self-modifying code. ;) I
know that a cache can be implemented via the high-speed CPU slot, but it
seems like it would have been better integrated into the system from the
start. Would a, say 256k SRAM cache significantly improve performance? 

    Now, please don't read this posting wrong. This is not a flame, or a
ragging, or whatever. I've used Commodore machines since the VIC-20, and I
love 'em. I've always liked Unix, and I think the 3000UX is a nice machine.
It is still overcoming a few of it's birthrights though. I also realize that
NONE of you Commodore-Amiga tech people and engineers can actually officially
say anything. But I'm left high 'n dry here in Denver without some real info.
Answer, if you will, with your opinions, or perhaps refer me to someone
official who I _really_ can pester. ;>

Note: AT&T, Unix, NeXT, Amiga, Commodore, AmigaDOS, Mac, XWindows, OpenLook,
Motif, and probably many other words I've used, are trademarks, copyrights,
or some other form of license. Rest assured that I am using them WITHOUT
permission of their owners, and frankly, I don't care. What a rebel am I.

    Thank you for allowing me this blatent mis-use of your ASCII bandwidth.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled drivel. And remember, Quantum
Leap is on Wednesdays now, and trash pickup has moved to Tuesdays.

    Chris - Xenon

#define chris at kessner.denver.co.us Chris_Hanson|Lord_Xenon|Kelson_Haldane
(303)/762-0849 Home, (303)/696-8973 Work, 1-976-DEV-NULL for flames.
For quick fun, do "worms | tee | mail root" and let it run for 30-40 secs...