From: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
Subject: Re: Comdex/Quicktime released for the PC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:49:47 GMT
Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc.

In article <1hsebbINNf10@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:
>
>In a previous article, mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) says:
>
>>In article <1992Dec14.140513.662@pcnntp.apple.com> Dale_Adams@gateway.qm.apple.com (Dale Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>If you really want a reasonable technical description of everything 
>>>QuickTime entails, please follow his advice and reference the developers' 
>>>docs.
>>
>>Again, what is the point?  Your own posting indicates that QT only BEGINS
>>to provide entry-level animation (30 fps 320x240 ... w-o-w) on the top
>>of the line macintoshes?  It is quite pitiful, actually.
>>
> Once again we get our arrogant Amigophile with the "My Amiga can do
>anything" attitude. Sure- it can do anything but become a major contender
>in the market here in the states for sure.

No, Europe is certainly the Amiga's bag.  But then, people there
have to be interested in value.

>QuickTime has won countless
>awards for software design and technology.

It has?  It's absolutely amazing how good marketing can make a trash
product successful.

>I don't seem to see too many
>awards for Commodore (or their blundering baffoonities). QuickTime can run
>on almost ANY Macintosh at any selected pixel depth.

Now, now... don't you think "run" is the wrong word for what it does?

>IT allows users to do
>cheap multimedia and is in NO way designed to be used for high end super
>duper professional work. Its an ENHANCMENT.

So all those awards for an enhancement?  For something to provide
cheap multimedia?  You just proved my point about good marketing!


>Keep in mind with the release
>of the PowerPC in the fall of 1993 with new multimedia technology the new
>PowerMacs will make the Amiga look like a toy.

You may have something to equal the Amiga 600 finally.

>
>>In other words, whatever it does, it needs to do less of it, because
>>the underlying graphics a5rchitecture is antiquated and slow.  The
>>QT facility fails to provide adequate animation on even the average mac
>>and it is a statement about how little the Mac can accomplish in real-time
>>work.
>>
>>>
>>>Also, I believe your numbers are a bit off.  Using QT 1.5 I run 320 x 240 
>>>animations at 30 fps on my Quadra 950 on a 16 bit/pixel screen.
>>
>>That may be something to be proud of on a mac using QT, but it
>>is so far behind Amiga animation capabilities it is laughable.
>>
> My my my, are we arrogant today or what? This has blown up into yet
>another "My computer is better than YOUR computer" or "My daddy is gonna
>beat up your daddy" argument. 

What the hell do you expect from .advocacy?  Bug Fixes?

>I will fully agree with you that the Amiga
>can do video and animation better than the Macintosh can, but you are
>placing QUICKTIME against professional authoring tools here, of which
>QuickTime CAN do, but isn't designed to do.

CHOKE.  QuickTime... professional authoring tools... can do...

... IN THE SAME SENTENCE?    I hope your mother doesn't catch you!


>Take some of the new video
>boards available for the Macintosh- full screen, 24-bit 30fps cards to USE
>QuickTIme and make it the "next big thing"....QuickTime needed and still
>needs time to mature, and 3rd party developers are scrambling to get their
>video equipment released. There is a plephoria of stuff available to get
>QuickTIme to run as well as an Amiga can do video work- just call RasterOps
>and Radius.

Well, I'm sure a Mac can be made to do video as well as an Amiga,
but let's handle ONE NATIONAL DEBT at a time, ok?

>
>>>I doubt 
>>>your A500 runs 60 times faster than that.
>>
>>Just the fact that an 8 MHz 68000-based machine can do better
>>at all that your $10,000 Quadra says it all.  And they call the
>>Mac a GRAPHICALLY-ORIENTED MACHINE?
>>
> Maybe some castor oil would help? First of all, ignorance is shown in the
>above statement of a $10,000 Quadra. A Quadra 700 (68040@25mhz) in a 4/240
>setup will set one back about $4199.

You're right.  That's ALOT closer to the price of an AMiga 600 for
similar animation.

>A Quadra 950 (68040@33mhz) will set
>you back about $6599 in an 8/260 setup. (RAM/HARDDISK).

OOPS... THAT must be the model that can animate like an Amiga 600.

>Yes, more expensive
>than the Amiga- but which computer (or company) has a better chance at
>existence 5 or 10 years from now.

In the video world?  I ain't worried.  Actually, the current incarnation
of the Mac is just about at an end.  The OS is so slow, antiquated and
has that annoying tendency to crash alot.  Placing 040's doesn't
produce a blazingly fast machine, just a pretty fast one... and
that overhead is only too well known.  Apple talks about new lines of
machines... I hope to hell they do better this time.

>I think that in your vocabulary, because
>the MAcintosh can't do 30fps in a Classic II configuration its not a
>serious computer. Sorry, my fault. That's why so many businesses I see
>using Amigas are out there. Get real. You sound like a PC dork now.

Businesses buy what's safe; they don't buy exceptional computers.
Just look at the number of PC's compared to the number of Macs
(much larger difference than between Amiga & Mac)... by your own
argument, are we to assume the PC is the best of the 3?
>
>>>Running anims on your A500 
>>>isn't doing what QT is doing.
>>
>>Very true.  The Amiga 600 isn't skipping frames, providing pitiful
>>jerky animation.
>>
> "And let slip the dogs of war." 

If it's a dog, must be a mac.

>
>>>If I just want a simple animation player, 
>>>I'll use something like MacroMind Director/Accelerator.  Using this 
>>>off-the-shelf software with no special tricks, my Q950 will animate at 
>>>over 90 fps on a 640 x 480 8 bit/pixel display.
>>
>>But it won't load up the next animation frames while SMOOTHLY displaying
>>the next.  It won't run OTHER GENERIC MAC SOFTWARE in the background
>>while animating.
>>
> Its better than running NO AMIGA SOFTWARE in the background. If you're
>doing animation work, you really wouldn't be wanting to do too much other
>stuff.

Aw, if your system could handle it, you might.

>Oh I forget, your super-duper Amiga can do 15 tasks in the
>background (including formatting two disks at once with no slowdown and
>feeding starving Somali's at that) and animate at the same time.

You're trying to be sarcastic, but y'know, except for the Somali
part, it actually CAN do all those other things at the same time!  :)

>I keep
>forgetting that while I animate I like to do spreadsheet work. (WHAT?)
> Granted the Ami can multitask well, but the rest of the world could care
>less.

That's only cause they also multitask less!

>
>>And why don't we stop talking about Quadras?  It's always
>>mind-boggling the number of times PC & MAC fanatics want to compare
>>the animation capabilies of their QUADRAS and 486's to an Amiga 600!
>>Notice they NEVER allow a 4000 (the flagship amiga) to enter the fray!
>>
> Because Commodore isn't taken seriously- its their own damned fault.

Oh, organizations like NASA and Nickleodeon take it VERY seriously,
but it IS C= fault that there are more macs out there.

>
>>Hey one of you 4000 owners... how fast can you animate 640x480x8?
>>
> Hey, 4000 owners- how many seriously taken business aps are there out
>there? How many AMigas are in business? How many computers have a long
>future?
>>>I do believe that you've seen QT running dog-slow on a Quadra.
>>
>>That's big of you.  Anyone out there who HASN'T?
>>
> Evidently you.

Huh?

>
>>>Heck, I 
>>>can make any machine run slow if is set things up right (wrong?).
>>
>>I can make a mac run slow even easier than that... just turn it on!
>>
> And I can make business people laugh by showing them an Amiga. ITs all
>relative.

You've never been around when an Amiga is demo'ed. eh?  I have.
Many, many times.  I guarrantee you, I've never heard anyone
laugh.  (Although a few have sobbed a little when they sat
back down at their PCs and Macs).

>
>>>I've 
>>>seen many Mac dealers demoing Quadras with the 040 cache off and running 
>>>all software from a CD-ROM.  Talk about crippling the machine!
>>
>>That brings up the fact how computer-ignorant the average mac owner is.
>>Did you know that for the system 7 tune-up, apple changed their plan
>>and provided a full installer program for it, even though it just needs
>>to be dragged into the system folder.  Seems that they discovered that
>>60% of mac owners DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT!  (reported in MacWeek)


Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics