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

[David Kessner]

In article <1991Mar23.090026.29503 at news.iastate.edu> skank at iastate.edu (Skank George L) writes:
>>I would not buy a system that is "stagnent"-- that is not adjusting to the 
>>times.  But I wonder about a system that is as new a Amiga UNIX and yet has 
>>so much talk about the next version...  It is just an indicator of the first
>>versions status.
>
>     This would bother me, but, for instance, Microsoft has the same problem.
>The first releases of many Microsoft titles were buggy and didn't perform up
>to developer expectations, to that end I think Commodore has far exceeded
>Microsoft in how well the initial release of the software works, especially
>considering the *huge* size of the project.  Microsoft (for a while at least)
>started to develop a reputation for buggy initial releases, it was so bad that
>the president set a company goal to improve the quality of future titles'
>initial releases.  It happens to all the big companies, so why shouldn't it
>happen to Commodore too?  (this is just to keep things in perspective, I
>don't like unfinished software anymore than the next person)
>
>					--George

This implies that we like Microsoft.  The same folks that brought us 
MS-DOS, Windows, and OS/2.  The folks that made BASIC for the Amiga that 
would not run on 020's and 030's.  The people that made TWO versions of
an operating system (MS-DOS 4.0 and 4.1) that is IGNORED by 90% of the
IBM clone market.  Their idea of a UNIX development system is Microsoft
C ("tuned for a 386").  The company that is PROUD to have Bill "the 286
makes a ideal multi-media computer" Gates.  

... and now we return you to your regularly schedualed flame ...

>  It happenes to all the big companies, so why shouldn't it happen to C= too?

EXXON (EXXOFF?)  dumped oil in Alaska, should TEXACO do the same?  Shipping
buggy software is not the way to run a busness, and I will never buy that 
software.  We should not put up with that type of quality-- and should NEVER
think of it as the norm.

Now, I do not know of any "bugs" in Amiga UNIX-- just huge omissions in the
software (we are still running the Beta3j version and awaiting version 1.1).
Most of these-- the lack of sar and imake to name two-- I expect to be solved
with version 1.1.  Others, like the lack of COLOR X11r4 will not be working 
untill version 2.0 (with the standard video).  Availability of OSF/Motif 1.1 
has not been 'announced' but it would be a big boon to those of us that 
relate Openlook with Multifinder.  The current B&W (not even grayscale) X11r3
is not adiquate for a lot of applications.

So, the real "issue" with Amiga UNIX is two fold:

	Why buy a A3000UXD over similarly configured competitor?

The answer here is not PRICE/PERFORMANCE, since the $7000 tag puts it in the
same ballpark as other FASTER machines.  The answer here is in C= loyalty, 
the ability to run AmigaDOS, and differences in service/setup (which may
be an issue, depending on who you are and who you buy from).

...and...

	Is Amiga UNIX satisfactory (software wise)?

Depends on what you expect.  My biggest complaint is color X11r4 with higher
resolutions, and a DIFFERENT window manager (I'd use UWM over Openlook, but uwn
is not available to my knoledge).  I'd like Motif, but wont hold it agenst C=.
There are big ommisions in Beta3j, that BETTER be fixed in 1.1.  You cannot
configure it as an NFS SERVER (hey C=, what's the scoop on this?).  Otherwise
it seems like a normal system-- average, but nothing that stands out.  Now, 
some of these wont have an effect on some (I myself dont use NFS) so they may
not be an issue...

On a whole-- I'm glad Microsoft didnt have a hand in Amiga UNIX!  :)

-- 
David Kessner - david at kessner.denver.co.us            | do {
1135 Fairfax, Denver CO  80220  (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) |    . . .
If you cant flame MS-DOS, who can you flame?          |    } while( jones);