From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Amiga 4000/Atari Falcon
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:24:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.193043.14072@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>>
>>Sigh, once again when one poster's experience doesn't match the experience of
>>another poster, the tendancy seems to be questioning the posters motive,
>>veracity or anything else other than trying to figure out why the experiences
>>are so different.  Why do we do this?
>>
>
>Are you trying to deny that PC shortcomings are vastly exaggerated on this
>newsgroup?  When every PC horror story posted here involves the fastest of
>PC hardware performing worse than atrociously, forgive me if I refuse to
>believe.  You may extract from these stories what you wish; I merely stated
>my own opinion.  It's amazing how every PC story posted here -- about
>performance, expansion, etc. -- is diametrically opposite from my experiences.
>

I never said you had to believe.  But its clear that you wish to
believe the worst without checking any further.  As to why people
post here on the PC shortcomings, where would you suggest that
someone who has tried different hardware platforms and is
convinced that the Amiga is the best, should post?  This place
seems natural to me.  However, that does not mean that their
experience is a "lie" at all, just as I wouldn't call a poster of
another newsgroups advocacy "BS" either?  If two people had
different experiences with a hardware platforms, seems to me it
would be constructive to find out why so perhaps the next time the
person uses the hardware platform, they might have a better
experience.  Now, IMHO Jerry, you provide a valuable service to
amiga.advocate readers by being a balance to another hardware
platform so that inaccuracies are not left unchallenged.  However,
I don't believe that you are doing the best service to your
position by submitting replies that attack the poster without at least
trying to find out if there could be a reason for the different
experiences.
>>
>>Well, I'll ask you this question again.  What "functionality" does
>>OS/2 2.0 provide that is not present in AmigaDOS?  I already know
>>about VM and MP but what else is present?  Does it perhaps support
>>multiple users like Unix, or multiple processors?  Please back up claims
>>such as "faster" file systems with objective comparisons.
>>
>
>Here we go again.  DIG.  Resource tracking.  A graphics system that supports
>splines, paths, non-rectangular clipping, 2-D transformations, Adobe scalable
>fonts, etc.  Multithreading.  Named pipes.  Queues.  Binary compatibility with
>DOS and Windows executables.  Want more?

Yes :) Although the features you mention are important, I
certainly wouldn't say that it puts OS/2 in a class above
AmigaDOS.  Also, I wouln't place much emphasis on the last item.
Although it sometimes is nice to have, there are other solutions
which do the same thing.  Most Unix systems I've seen which run on
Intel boxes have provisions that allow them to run DOS binaries.
And the Amigas Bridgeboard solution also is another approach to
the same end.  Now let me ask you this question, how familiar are
you with the Amiga Operating System?  When you made up your list,
did you perhaps see any features that the AmigaOS might have that
OS/2 didn't.  For example, does OS/2 support the virtual printer
concept?  However, if you are familiar, then you've probable
already taken that into account...

>--
>| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729