Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oh my God! Help my friend not buy an IBM!
From: brycerw@brandonu.ca
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:59:39 CST
 <1992Nov9.120235.6244@gw.wmich.edu> <1992Nov9.200117.27089@cs.olemiss.edu> <1992Nov9.163300.6254@gw.wmich.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov9.163300.6254@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.200117.27089@cs.olemiss.edu>, skip@cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls) writes:
>> Sounds like you are one of those boring people who use computers for such
>> mundane tasks as word processing, spreadsheets, and that sort of thing.
>> Try to equip a PC for multimedia and you'll see one area in which the Amiga
>> is much better suited.  The company I work for is putting together systems
>> for salesmen to take on the road with them, consisting of the CPU, a genlock,
>> a laserdisk, audio capability, and software.  The PC systems require an SVGA
>> board with genlock capability ($500 for a decent one), a SoundBlaster Pro
>> (which still does measure up to the native Amiga audio), 8M RAM if you are
>> running Windows, and at least a 386-33 for minimal performance.  By contrast,
>> an Amiga A1200 will do everything that the Clone will and do it better.
>> 
>> Clones are fine for boring everyday tasks, but they cannot hold a candle to
>> an Amiga when it comes to cutting edge applications.
>> 
>> Skip Sauls, Amiga Advocate
>> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu
> 
> 	So your point is, Clones are good if you want to get work done
> but to play with multimedia which very very few people use, the Amiga
> is great?
> 	First of all, I am an EE major with a computer systems engineering
> specialty (meaning in our EE program I took the CSE option).  I use this
> machien (my clone) to do engineering projects and programming primarily.
> However, I also like to listen to musion it for fun (rather listeten
> to the radio still), play games, do a lot of telecommunications with it.

I'm developing on both an A3000 (soon A4000) and a clone - a 486/33 with some
of the toys (not full-blown), running Windows.  I have to develop under
Windows, as that is what the contract is for.  My boss and I are developing
a training environment for forest rangers, for training in forest-fire
fighting tactics - ie. where to allocate resources, manpower, etc.  Also in
this project is a forest-fire prediction system, for forest management.  I
do my primary development on the Amiga, then port it to the clone.  Why, you
ask?  Because it is simply a BETTER SYSTEM to develop on.  Yes, I've got good
compilers on both systems - SAS/V6 and Borland 3.0.

> 	I have not seen an Amiga (500,2000,3000) that can even come close
> to what I can do on this in terms of animation, multitasking, and
> raw computing power.  I give the Amigas the edge on sound as you said,

The *only* areas the clone beats my A3000 (stock) is in raw computing power -
which I do need - and deeper graphics - which I also need.  Thus the A4000.
There is no question in my mind that multitasking on the Amiga is far
superior to anything I've seen on a clone.  Yes, I have seen OS/2 on an 8meg
machine.  Response time by the system is simply better on the Amiga.
Animation, too, is superior on the Amiga.  One advantage to the
clones, however, is virtual memory.

> 	By the way, what is "Cutting" edge to an Amiga user?  Multimedia?

That does seem to the a key word being thrown around now-a-days.  But by no
means is that the only cutting edge.
> 
> 	I think perhaps our difference in opinion is lack of experience.
> It appears you haven't spent a lot of time with IBMs equipped to the max
> and I will concede that I probably haven't seen Amigas equipped to the
> max.  I will say this however, this machine here is certainly superior

While I haven't worked on either an Amiga or a clone equipped to the max, both
systems I consider above average.  In terms of speed - it depends on what
you're measuring.  For every-day things like window refreshing, rendering, etc.
the Amiga wins.  As far as raw computing power, it takes an A4000 to win.
Graphics - speed, Amiga wins; depth, resolution - the PC still wins, but the
A4000 is d*mn close.  Workability - easy - the Amiga.  It's a dream to develop
on compared to a PC.  At least for what I'm doing.           

> to any amiga I have used in terms of speed, workablity, graphics,
> and multitasking.  I am not familiar with that Amiga 1200 and I have
> not used teh Amiga 4000 however.  Keep in mind though, you can buy
> machines like mine now for under $2000.

Not equipped to the max.  A 'loaded' PC still costs close to that of an Amiga
with a few extras.

> you have seen it on this conference) is pretty offensive too.  Unless
> someone here happens to have an IBM compatible with 16 megs of ram,
> OS/2 2.01, Coprocessed 24bit video and also has an Amiga, I don't think
> people should say that the Amiga "blows" away clones as a general
> statement.  There are too many clones out there with too many options.
> One could say "Amigas blow away the typical clone setup." and I wouldn't
> argue with that.
> 
> 							-Brad
> 
That should be "Typical Amigas blow away the typical clone setup."  To go with
that, drop 16 megs in an A4000 (or A3000 for that matter), add a video card
to an A3000 (don't need it now in the 4000), and then you can still say "Amigas
blow away similarily set-up clones."

And is OS/2 2.01 released yet?  Thought that was still in beta, with only 2.0
being the latest commercially released product.

--Rob
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy