From: fheitkamp@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga or Messy-DOS
Date: 21 Nov 92 10:16:01 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <etxtsg.722261278@solsta-c>, etxtsg@solsta.ericsson.se (Thomas Grennefors  TX/DKF) writes:
> fheitkamp@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>	Wrong.  Wrong.  A 7mhz 68000 is more comparable to a 12mhz 286
>>	speedwise.  And since it is a 32 bit processor in the programmers
>>	sense, it is really comparable to a 386sx.  XTs only ran a 4.77
>>	mhz, if I remember correctly.  That 1985 technology was at least
>>	3 years ahead of its time when compared to PCs.
> 
> Yes but it`s three years (at least) behind todays tecnology (386 486 3000 4000). 
> 
>>	Gee I've never seen read-write errors and crashes on PCs?  Abort?
>>	Retry? Fail?.   Internal stack Error.  You can't run xxx with
>>	Windows.  Or just sit their and look back at you.  At least the 
>>	Amiga crashes and resets itself or shows you an error message of
>>	some sort.
> 
> Yes i didn`t say that the PC was fool proof, but it feals more reliable
> than an amiga. Every computer fails one time or another. The thing that is
> important is how often does this problems occurs, and that way to often 
> on my Amiga.
> 
>>	Yes, Yes, I love data base and wordprocessing.  I can't WAIT
>>	to turn on my computer and do that!
> 
> Ok you do not use your computer for that, so every one that does should 
> be flamed and looked upon as moorons. Gee i uses my computer for word 
> processing and database applications so i'm a less qualified computer
> user tham you are! Is that what you mean? Is shure sound like that.
> The point i wanted to make was that i run process demanding applications
> an therefore i need a computer wit a lot of prosess power.

	I just don't think all people would have that as a important
	requirment for using a computer.  BTW I have been using word
	processors on PCs and I have been using Final Copy on the Amiga.
	For what I do, I haven't noticed any serious short comings in FC.

> 
>>	Gosh, WHAT an advantage.  I'm sold.  I want to read my friends
>>	WP file!
> 
> Where did i say that i wanted to run Word Perfect. Here you go again.
> Looking down on people because they do wordprossessing instead of 
> writing nifty demos with sinus scrolls with 2048 different colours.
> with 300 different objects moving across the screen with different 
> patterns.

	Some of this stuff that are typically touted as advantages for
	PCs really don't mean sh*t unless you are totally computer
	illiterate.  Now I'm not saying they're unimportant in all cases,
	just most.  I mean most Wordprocessors can import and export
	ASCII.

> 
>>	486s are dirt cheap.  For sure.
> 
> Yes. About $1000 cheaper than a 3000.

	The numbers game is really important in the clone world.  The 
	problem is the numbers don't tell you the whole story.  Why does
	a 386DX with TSENG SVGAstill seem slower than a A2000 with a GVP
	accelerator?  They both have same generation CPUs.

> 
>>	If you have used an Amiga for some time, you will loathe using
>>	MS-DOS, there is no comparison.  The Amiga is so much more user
>>	friendly.
> 
> That's one thing that i haven`t noticed. I never use WB on my amiga if i can
> avoid it. Everything i do i do from a shell. I want full control over what
> i do. The fact that i uses unix at work may have something to do with it.
> And the difference between Amiga in shell and a PC in dos is not that
> great.
> 
> 
	I don't use WB all the time either, but its still good for some 
	things.  I actually like the AmigaDOS shell over the c-shell for
	mundane tasks like doing directorys, copying files, etc.   Csh is
	obviously in a whole other league as far as power.
 
> --
> 
> Thomas Grennefors         ! What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
> Ericsson Telecom,Karlstad ! What do you mean, an African or a European swallow?
> etxtsg@solsta.ericsson.se ! Well...I don't know...AAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!
Fred Heitkamp,  ** Not an organization.  My opinions only **

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy