From: lindblad@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jarkko Lindblad)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga 4000/Atari Falcon
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:10:03 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
: lindblad@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jarkko Lindblad) writes:

: >: >Big deal.  An Amiga 500 does the same.  How about with a ray trace
: >: >happening in the background?
: >: 
: >: Never tried it.  Have you?  Didn't think so.
: >
: >Jerry, I remember how you once said that you _never_ bash Amiga, but
: >only defend PC from Amigians bashing. However now you do bash Amiga.
: 
: What?!  Where in the above did I bash the Amiga?

Perhaps you did not do it intentionally, but your words "Didn't think
so." immediately appeared in my mind as "Naah, Amiga can't do even
that, it sucks"....sorry, perhaps I should have written my translation
first...:-)

: >I did 2 minutes ago download at 2400 bps, ray traced on background,
: >compiles a C-program on background and wrote a letter using a word
: >processor (I also had text editor in ram). The word processor I used,
: >worked at FULL SPEED with NO slowdown. There is absolutely NO reasons
: >why it would not have worked at full speed as there are such things as
: >priorities.
: 
: Am I missing something?  Did I say somewhere that you couldn't do this on
: an Amiga?  The guy (Mike Haas) asked if I tried this under OS/2, and I said,
: "No.  Have you?"  What's the big deal?

The sentence "Didn't think so." gives the reader a feeling that you
don't believe that Amiga can do that (at least in this contex). Damn
I'm tired. I guess it's time for me to go to bed RSN.

: >: It still isn't even close to OS/2 in terms of functionality.
: >
: >One can also say that OS/2 is not even close to AmigaOS in terms of
: >functionality - there are lots of differences in the OSes. OS/2 is
: >better than AmigaOS in some things and has more functionality on some
: >areas, but what you fail to see is the fact that AmigaOS also is
: >better on some things and has more functionality on some areas. To me
: >it seems that you're saying that "Aeroplane is not even close to ship
: >in terms of functionality" - you're comparing apples and oranges.
: 
: OK.  In previous articles, I listed OS/2 functionality which AmigaOS doesn't
: have.  Why don't you list some AmigaOS features that are missing from OS/2?

Okay: OS/2 is _not_ real time operatoing system. And this one alone is
enough to proove you that OS/2 lacks some functionality AmigaOS has.

: And please, limit your list to major functionality, not things like minor
: differences in user interface gadgets.

I didn't even mention that OS/2 does not run Amiga executables...:-)

: IMHO, it's not like comparing an apple to an orange; we are, after all,
: comparing two end-user operating systems.

Two operating systems based on different philosophies.

: >It's funny how you now compare OS/2 with extra PD/commercial goodies
: >to stock AmigaOS - we can of course do the same thing too.
: 
: Actually, I don't mind the OS/2 command line.  It is more functional than
: DOS (to say the least).  Many commands have a syntax which is similar to
: that of the corresponding DOS command, but I'm used to it.  All I did was
: mention that for those who don't like it, there are free alternatives.
: 
: BTW, you *did* do the same thing when you brought BridgeBoards and third-party
: VM kludges into the discussion.

Which I only mentioned because you mentioned the Command line cludges...

: >True - Bridgeboard is much MORE than a PC...
: 
: [Bursting with laughter]  Let's just say I disagree.

Fine with me.

--
Jarkko Lindblad
lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi