From: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:17:20 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>I think you mean the same as my "why waste a mac" comment above.

>>      And even on the GUI is better end...Amiga has a much better interface 
>> than Mac, 

>NOT!

>(sorry, I coun't resist)

>Ahem. What specifically makes you think the Amiga UI is better than the Mac
>UI? The marketplace would tend to disagree with you.

>> and handles Multimedia in a way that makes Quicktime even more of a
>> pathetic embarrasement than it already is.

>The Amiga handled Multimedia better? In what way? The Amiga does have a leg
>up on NTSC video handling, but not all video is NTSC, nor is Multimedia
>confined to video! 

>In what way is QuickTime an embarrasement? Perhaps you are not impressed
>by tiny little pictures on the screens of Macs. But that isn't all there is
>to QuickTime! There's at least two different parts that are equally important:

>* Component Manager - allows users to plug-in specialized multimedia hardware
>  and have it work with all QuickTime applications automatically. So if you
>  have hardware to do full-screen video, you can use it just as easily as
>  with the tiny, disk to screen stuff.

>* Data Standards - regardless of your hardware, QuickTime defines data 
>  standards for storing multimedia information, so various applications can
>  use real-time data. This is directly in line with the use of a standard
>  picture format for still images (PICT) This way, QuickTime applications
>  can trade information even if they have never been used together before.

>If Amiga machines are so great, why is there no third party support. The
>Mac doesn't have this problem.

Pardon me for jumping  in.  I don't necessarily think the Amiga
is an inferior machine.  There  are many reasons to the lack of third party
support on the Amiga... let me list one:

   Commodore hardly ever advertised, nor does it actively recruit third 
   party developers like Apple do.  Remember how Mac started?  Steve Jobs
   paid big bucks to Microsoft, Borland and all those companies to
   develop software (such as the good o' "Jazz"--one of the first Mac apps)
   to the Mac.  Also, Jobs spent a lot of money advertising.  IF you 
   flip back to old issues of Byte (say, 1985)... you will see 2-4 pages
   of Apple advertisement in each issue!!! meanwhile, how many times have
   commodore advertised?  none!!! pardon me, once... and that's in the
   latest (sept. 1992) issue.    Therefore, the Amiga isn't as successful
   as it can be now is caused by Commodore, not because of the machine
   itself.

Please dont get me wrong--I am not claiming the Mac is an inferior
machine either--but I just want to clear up some stereotype/misconception
of the amiga.       

followups to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy

>-- 
>Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
>Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
>Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
>POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
>Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
>Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Yours Sincerely,
Kelvin
e-mail: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu