From: u9148043@cs.uow.edu.au (Justin Jay Lister)
Subject: Re: Oh my God! Help my friend not buy an IBM!
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:37:42 GMT

brycerw@brandonu.ca writes:

>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:

>>> Skip Sauls, Amiga Advocate
>>> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu
where is sluaspiks ??
Rumour Monger!

[Skips current status - No need to repeat for me]

>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
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^               ^^^^^^^^^^^
Poor you, at least you are getting paid for it, is it enough ?? 8)

>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 seen both they are both quite empressive, I have used the Borland C for
Os/2 it is very nice - bit on the large size though (knew they had something 
wrong 8))

>> 	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.

Yes but this is a clone with a gfx card isn't it ?? Put on a vivid and you
won't have a comparison (sure you won't have a nickel to your name though :) )

>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.

That is because it is real-time os

>Animation, too, is superior on the Amiga.  One advantage to the
>clones, however, is virtual memory.
Excuse me virtual memory, you haven't heard of gigamem ??
Very impressive, you define the virtual mem requirements for each program
you have and when it is run the system self-adjusts to the requirements.
Far better than the virtual mem support for the ibms I think, also don't get
the probs of the Os/2 crash partition corruption.

>> 	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

there are comparable amiga even more so, start pushing them real high and
the amiga even starts to come more price compeditive, especially when you
start adding software costs.

>> 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

Me again, I have been away from usenet to long I have this urge to post.
Hope I don't offend anyone, Truely unintended!
-- 
|.####...#....#..######.| Amiga 2000 HD 120+9Meg  &  Amiga 500              |
|.#...#..#....#..#......|   email:  u9148043@cs.uow.edu.au                  |
|.####...#....#..###....| OS/2 - If your happy with half and OS fine with me|
|.#...#...####...#......| He who rides the tiger can never dismount         |
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy