From: peterk@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:38:36 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Organization: Commodore Germany

In article <jon.taylor.62.724187854@uuserv.cc.utah.edu>, jon.taylor@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (JON M. TAYLOR) writes:
 >In article <10264@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> peterk@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany) writes:
 >>From: peterk@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany)
 >>Subject: Re: Don't let the Amiga Die (Part II)!!!
 >>Date: 11 Dec 92 08:37:37 GMT
 >>In article <jon.taylor.59.723934740@uuserv.cc.utah.edu> jon.taylor@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (JON M. TAYLOR) writes:
 >>>I know 
 >>>that a lot of people here (usually transplants from the UNIX and DOS worlds) 
 >>>like the high-end stuff, but face it folks, pc's can run "applications" 
 >>>software BETTER than Amigas can.  
 >>          ^^^^^^
 >>That's WRONG! Why should they? Tell me one technical reason! 
 > 
 > 	OK, I'll tell you why.  It's only recently that PCs have begun to 
 > "burden" themselves with multitasking GUIs.  Before that, they could devote 
 > almost all the horsepower of their machines to running apps.  An they had 
 > lots of horsepower.  Insofar as we are only looking at productivity, a PC 
 > with DOS, VGA and a [3,4]86 processor can run quattro pro BETTER and FASTER 
 > than an Amiga, or even a PC with windows or OS/2.  It doesn't have the 
 > overhead, and it has the horsepower.  

Hmm, trying not to start another Intel/Moto war, but seen from the processor
side, there was always equal horsepower available on the Amiga side. The
old 68000 easily competes with a 286, some people even advocate it on
even level with a 386SX (I only cite, can't decide it). And with the 030
and the 040 we are also on par or even better than 386DX and 486. So I
don't see any less horsepower on the Amiga side than with PCs. - And when
you mention the OS on those PCs not suffering from a GUI overhead, then
please accept that the Amiga OS is so efficient that it also suffers not
any penalty in performance for its GUI and multitasking capabilities.
I think this is a plain fact.

 >It doesn't have a blitter, copper, 
 > cool sound, etc.  because it doesn't need them (for these kind of apps, 
 > anyway).  All the stuff that the Amiga has is unnecessary for running 
 > productivity apps, because all you really need for those is CPU horsepower 
 > and halfway decent, non-coprocessed, framebuffer-type graphics.  

Again, please don't imply that the Amiga in any way *suffers* from all
these features! How can you try to turn this into a disadvantage?
Perhaps you really think, all this stuff means a heavy load for the
whole system and brings down performance. But this is not true!

You stated that those PCs are BETTER prepared to run such apps.
This appears still untrue.

>The PC's 
> have the maketing momentum/presence to be able to be business AND game 
> computers - the Amiga does not.

Well, perhaps on your side of the pond...

-- 
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to \\  Only my personal opinions...
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
Wer's nicht kann, soll's bleiben klopfen oder Steine lassen!