From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oh my God!  Help my friend not buy an IBM!
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:21:54 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Nov9.195020.26930@cs.olemiss.edu>, skip@cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.120425.6245@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.134303.6859@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>> In article <1992Nov8.220520.6234@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>>>	I used to have an Amiga and when I went to a PC I vowed to
>>>>make sure it did mroe than my Amiga did and it does.  My PC blows
>>>>away any Amiga I have ever seen in terms of graphics, sound, animation
>>>>and multitasking.  Hence, OS/2, 16 megs of memory, 24 bit coprocessed
>>>>graphics, an Sound Blaster Pro.
>>>>	By the way, never had a problem with it since I bought it (2 years
>>>>ago).
>>> 
>>> As a matter of interest, could you please tell me how much you
>>> paid for this PC?
>>> 
>>	Sure, it cost just over $2400.  It costs more than an Amiga 500 no
>>doubt but that is irrelevant.  The Amiga costs more than the c-64 but
>>that doesn't make the c-64 better.  Of course, it would likely cost
>>more to get a similarly equipped Amiga.  
> 
> Your system sounds okay, but the one I use for development at work blows
> it away: 486-50DX, 16M RAM, SoundBlaster Pro, Ethernet Board, ET4000 SVGA
> board with 24bit DAC, 1280x1024 max res, up to 65k colors in 800x600 and
> 24bit truecolor in 640x480, 2 245M 12.5ms drives, plus an assortment of
> software that we actually paid for.  The price for everthing is now over
> $4000 and it is nice as far as Clones go, but I wouldn't want one for my
> personal machine.
> 
> Hell, my A3000 does everything as well or better than the Clone does except
> for raw CPU power and color depth.  I am expecting an A4000 in the next day
> or so and have little doubt that it will blow any Clone away.  Stay tuned
> for a post of benchmarks and general impressions of the two.  Am I biased?
> Maybe, but I spend as much or more time using the Clone and feel that I am
> as qualified as anyone to compare the two.
> 
>>>>						-Brad
>>> 
>>> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>>> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
> 
> Skip Sauls, Amiga Advocate
> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu
	
	The only thing your clone has that my machine doesn't have is
the 486-50mhz where my computer is only a 486-33 and I am not on a
network of any kind so I don't have an Ethernet card.  But It has
a 245meg hard drive, 16 megs ram, same graphics yours does.

	AGain, we look at things from a different point of view.  I
had an Amiga and it was no where near as good as the current Amiga 3000
or Amiga 4000 (I had an Amiga 2000).  But for me, easy software support
means a lot to me and cheap hardware upgrades also mean a lot to me and
no Amiga user can honestly say that upgrading the Amiga is cheaper than
an IBM clone.  Case in point, 88 meg removable drive for an Amiga 500
is $900.  For mine, $390.  
	I would never again want an Amiga as my home machine but
I still recommend it to newer computer users because an Amiga 500
based machine is still a damn fine piece of work.  But only for
a family, in my opinion.  
	If I were going to do video productions or something else along
that line, then I would go to an Amiga 4000 but software support and
upgradability at a low cost means a lot to me.

						-Brad