From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: I DID giev up on the Amiga!
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:15:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Jul24.151535.2865
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

In article <1992Jul24.093643.11790@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> mlelstv@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
>In <1992Jul23.213839.25936@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett) writes:
>>   Not as small as you'd think.  Most of the Mac II systems (and all of the 
>>Quadr systems) can output NTSC and PAL. 
>
>I haven't seen Quadra output but most Mac II systems cannot output a
>usable NTSC or PAL signal. Can you connect them to a TV or VCR ?

   Yes.

>>   Is it really better to have no hard disk capability at all?  For Amiga 500
>>owners, adding something as basic as a hard drive can cost three times more
>>than they paid for their computer!  It's also a pretty safe bet that even the
>>slowest Macs are quite a lot faster than the A600's IDE port in terms of HD
>>speed.
>
>_All_ Macs except for the Quadra (and if I remember right the IIfx)
>have _slower_ HD interfaces. Their SCSI performance is below anything
>you can find on the Amiga and it should be slower than the A600s IDE
>port as an IDE port isn't inherently slow, it has a worse burst speed
>than SCSI and no time multiplexing of the bus, both aren't interesting
>if you have a midrange HD and don't access multiple disks in parallel.
>SCSI is of course more versatile but an A590 controller (not the utterly
>slow disk that comes with it) beats nearly all Macs.

   I use Macs here, and the HD performance of these machines is definately
faster than my TrumpCard Pro 500.  Granted, they are slower than the A3000,
but then the A3000 is also quite a bit more expensive than any of these 
Macs.  You get what you pay for.  But at least these Macs HAVE a SCSI port.
Commodore is currently advertizing the A2000 on 'special' for $1200, and
for this you only get the main unit and a monitor -- NO SCSI controller 
and no HD at all.  Again, what is better: a slower HD, or no HD?


>>>>   Oh, yes, the infamous 160x480 and 160x960 HAM modes.  Too bad the
>>>>horizontal resolutions are lower than on my old VIC-20.
>>>
>>>Those modes aren't VGA.. can you read ? He said VGA compatible modes.
>
>>   Shows how much you know about Amigas.  These modes most certainly are VGA.
>>Get a clue next time.
>
>Shows how much you know about VGA. While 160x480 possibly could use 
>VGA frequencies the 160x960 can never be VGA as VGA cannot display 960 lines.

   Will you please give it up?  You keep giving me (and everybody else reading
this newsgroup) more and more evidence that you do not know what you are
talking about.  All of the XXXx960 modes (640x960, 320x960, 160x960, etc.)
work fine on my VGA-compatible monitor.  They work because the XXXx960 modes
are INTERLACED.  You really are in serious need of a clue.

>Regards,
>-- 
>Michael van Elst
>UUCP:     universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
>Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
>                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
-----------------------------------------------------
"If you like Congress, you'll **LOVE** Bill Clinton."
                                --new campaign slogan