From: papresco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: HELP--AMIGA OR IBM PC CLONE?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:49:49 GMT

>As long as you're running all Windows software, you're laughing.  All these
>"SVGA" cards have drivers for OS/2, I suppose?

Mine does...most do.

>And neither can most (affordable) monitors.  Oh, they'll do it, but try
>separating two single pixel lines, a pixel apart, on most 14" monitors at
>anything above 800x600 some time...

And yet there is a noticeable improvement in 1024X768 over 800X600 even
on a 14" monitor.  

I thought the idea was that you WEREN'T supposed to be able to tell the
difference between lines of pixels.  That means they are small enough
that you can't see the dots.  That's GOOD.

>It is.  You should meet its cousin, 1408x564.  Since it's interlaced, it's
>exceptionally useful for video titling work.

And exceptionally useless for productivity work...unless you like head
aches.

>>Vesa spec bandwith is much higher then EITHER of these.  Byte says
>>150Mps sec...that's 19M/sec.  They also say: "Few of today's
>>applications require more then 100Mbs"...Vesa spec local bus has
>>bandwith to spare.
>
>Yes, that's like saying the SCSI standard allows for 4MB/sec, so therefore
>my particular hard drive and SCSI interface go that fast.  You're basing an
>argument on a theoretical spec.

No I'm basing the arguement that the ISA bus is a limitation on today's
PCs.

>Let's get this straight.  "SVGA" is *NOT* anything and everything.  It must
>bear some passing relationship to VGA, which is strictly a dumb card.  If you
>have hardware bit blitting and line drawing, you're talking TIGA or S3, etc.
>Not SVGA.

SVGA is anything that can do the "strictly dumb card mode."  Let me
assure you, these accelerated video cards can do that.  They are,
therefore, SVGA.  Tiga and S3 are SVGA...as you'll see if you see any
review of SVGA cards.

>It has nothing to do with Windows.  Try installing a simple little tape
>controller card in a PC which already has a SCSI interface, a network card,
>and a Targa board, then get back to me.  Until you've tried supporting dozens
>of PCs in a range of hardware configurations, you really have no idea just how
>cretinous they can be.

Luckily, the great majority of us only deal with one or two PCs at a
time, and upgrade something in them less then once every 6 months.
The rest have someone like YOU doing their upgrades.  And you get
employment.  This point is as beat to death by Amiga users as the bus
thing, although I suspect you recognize that it is weak, because it is
not much of a problem for most people.

>But, what if some had Amigas, and some Macs, and some Unix boxes, and some
>even had PCs.  We don't all need to own Amigas.  But, I object to the
>stifling sameness of a PC-only world.  Alas, that seems to be the way we're
>heading.  Maybe RISC workstations will save us yet.  I hope so.

There is no "sameness" in the PC-world.  95% of all Amigas run
AmigaDOS, the rest run that rotten unix you have.  PC users can run 20
different versions of Unix, OS/2, Windows, NT, Dos, QNX, NeXTStep,
DR-DOS, CPM-86, you name it.  That's not stifling sameness, it's
resounding choice.

Most Amiga users use only the built in graphics hardware.  PC
accelerated video boards go from $150.00->$3000.00 depending on the
power you want.  That's not stifling "sameness" it's wonderful options.

Most Amiga users use "standard" sound.  PC users can choose from one of
20 new sound boards, most released in the last six months.

Most Amiga users use one of 2 or 3 wordprocessors.  There are 97 PC
wordprocessors.

All Amiga users use some form of Zorro bus.  PC users can choose one of
VESA,EISA, ISA, MCA, PCI and any combination of them!

All Amiga users use Motorola chips.  PC users can use AMD, Cyrix, or
Intel.

Where is this stifling sameness.  Just because PCs are everywhere
doesn't mean yours has to look like everyone else!  Use a different OS,
different applications, a different programming language...dare to be
different without giving up compatibility with the application
development standard.