From: fihsu@athena.mit.edu (Hsu I-wei)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:24:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.013439.153540@watson.ibm.com> arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick) writes:
>
>Yes, graphics cards.  Does the Emplant + Amiga + 040 + (your choice) have
>NuBUS slots?  If it does not, all the video options open to real Mac users
>are closed.

Nope, Emplant will supposedly be able to access Amiga video cards from the
Mac side. (ie. use an Amiga 24-bit board just like it was a Mac 24-bit
board)

>Additionally:
>- a MIDI box (external) that plugs into a serial port that works with 
>  Vision and Performer;
>- Accelerators, when I decide (and have the money) to upgrade

dunno about the MIDI box, but accelerators for the Amiga of course would
work.

>- Non-ethernet networking cards
>- Radius Rocket multi-processing capable cards
>- National Instruments' data-aquisition cards
>- Application-specific accelerators
>- Peripheral (e.g. Scanner) cards
>- Wacom tablets (from the ADB port)
>- SCSI devices (which the A4000 does not support out-of-the-box)
>- Sound cards, for sampling or improved (4-channel or more) output
>  and editing

depending on which of those peripherals are not available for the Amiga, you'd
lose going with Emplant. (ie. no Radius Rocket for the Amiga) Of course, if
the NuBus adapter for Zorro III becomes reality, then all of those will be
able to be used.

>>I not moving up, down or anywhere at this time. I simply find the idea of
>>an A4000+Emplant+BB to be interesting. Moreover one of the reasons I do
>>find it interesting is the preemptive nature of the OS. An OS which can't
>>multitask has very little appeal to me anymore.

Yes, it would be neat to be able to run Amiga, PC, and Mac apps simultaneously
in one box. :)

>
>Are you even buying a computer?  If not, then what does it matter to you
>whether one machine is better or not?

I even wonder if Emplant would be good for the Amiga if it lives up to its
claim. It just means that more people will be using Mac software and less
people using Amiga software.

>>Most of the native MacOS apps run fine with a ci. The Quadra is not that much
>>faster. In fact performance using transcendental functions on an 040 is 
>>poor (on any 040).
>
>Most.  Not all.  Like Painter, or Infini-D, or MacRenderMan, and indeed a
>good many games.  Transcendental functions on an 040 is better than a 386, or
>030, or 68000.  Not poor, just not as good as a 68881.  And a Quadra IS that
>much faster.  Running a Q950 compared to an IIci is a vast difference, for
>at least the apps that I use.  Is a Q700?  Yes, there is still a noticable
>difference; the Q700 also has much more than a faster processor, like
>improved internal video and a microphone.
>
>>I can see some reasons for getting a Quadra. But they aren't overwhelming.
>>Why spend the money when for far less you can compile on a RISC workstation 
>>at far greater speeds? 

Hmm.. not that far less! I don't know of any workstations besides one or two
Sparcstation models which can be gotten for cheaper than the Quadra 700 at
least...

>Again and again, the Mac comes back to me as the easiest interface and
>environment to work with.  New applications are easy to grasp, and the
>interface has kept its original orthogonality.  It is the most advanced
>GUI available (in some respects; X is definately more advanced in others).
>I am using a Mac because I don't need to fight with it to do what I want;
>I never had to fight with new hardware to get it to work (both absolutely
>and with certain applications).  THAT is the primary reason I am using a
>"slow" computer like a Mac.
>
>>... In fact, apart from the consumer computers and the
>>PowerBooks, why would anybody buy a Mac now when the PowerPC will, presumably
>>give you a worthwhile boost in power.
>
>This is a now vs. later arguement.  Why buy a computer now when next year's
>models will be faster?  Why buy next year's model when the year after that

True. You buy a Mac now if you need it. If you don't, then you might as well
wait anyways.

>they will be even faster?  Why not just wait until you are on your death bed?
>One year is too far away for me to wait.
>I do not see the Mac's being phased out; I do not see PowerPC blowing
>away a Quadra at running the Mac OS.  Could be; I assign a low probability.

hopefully the PowerPC will be running a better OS.

[rest of article deleted]
>
>>Philip McDunnough
>>philip@utstat.toronto.edu
>
>When I Need Data Obliterated, Windows Satisfies
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>My views are my own; behaviorists can stick THAT up their ***!

"Your" views are a result of the environment you were brought up in. ;)

>Andrew R. Southwick

Francis