From: moore@ug.cs.dal.ca (Heath Ernest Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: IBM vs Amiga settled once and for all
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:20:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Ok I'd like to settle this IBM vs Amiga thing once and for all.
I work at a computer store that sells both IBM clones and Amiga's.
I have worked MANY, MANY hours on both.  I can honestly say that I much
prefer the Amiga.  So much so, that I bought an A3000.

1. Speed...

 To settle this argument I took a 16 MHz 386DX clone and my A3000 16 Mhz
 machine and ran some tests, here are the results...

 Operation                     Amiga                 IBM Clone
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 Rotate a 256 color digitized  10 secs                22 secs
 image 360 degrees, 3 times.

 Hard drive speed test with    1100074 K/Sec          453200 K/sec
 the same 256K buffer

 Dhrystones / Sec              6361                   5239

 Spell check a 2000 word       29 secs                38 secs
 Document (WP for Windows,
 and Excellence 2 for Amiga

 I used PageMaker on the IBM and PageStream 2.2 on the Amiga and they
 were comparable in speed.  Note that PageStream is NOT the fastest Amiga
 DTP program.

2.  GUI interface performance... 

After having Windows 3.1 (Developers copy) and Workbench 2.0 running
( the Amiga was in 8 color 670 x 420 resolution) the Amiga seemed
very much faster with only 1 application loaded.  With 5 loaded the Amiga
was a great deal faster.  Three other salesman and 1 service tech verified
this to make sure I wasn't biased.  OS 2 on the IBM did provide a speed 
increase and made the IBM roughly the same in performance to the Amiga.
But considering that Windows is more widely used in companies and in th 
home I chose to use it as a comparison.

3. take a look in BYTE magazine, I forget the actual issue, they had an
article on current GUI's.  It seemed to me that their 2 favorites were
AmigaDos/Workbench 2.0 and the Mac's System 7.  Not to mention that 
Commodore is soon coming out with a much improved version 2.1 of the OS.

4.  Quality of software...

  the IBm does have thousands more pieces of business software (databases
, spreadsheets etc.).  The Amiga however has MUCH more graphics, Video and
Multimedia packages.  Quality wise, the Amiga has DTP programs 
that are easily as good as any IBM DTP, likewise with the Amiga's
Word Processing Software.  And for DataBases, both the IBM and Amiga
have the very outstanding SuperBase Pro 4.

Summary...

  Basically, I chose to speak up because I really hate people who
have only briefly encountered the Amiga putting it down.  I have used
both IBM Clones and Amiga in depth and know the computers inside out.
I do prefer the Amiga but that does not mean everyone will, or should.
The IBM is generally more accepted for business applications, not 
necessarily because it is superior, but because it was released first
and became the standard.  This is an advantage.  The Amiga however is
generally the accepted standard for any type of video work.  Both machines
have very high quality software, but IBM does have more.  However, the 
high end software on both machines is very comparable in quality.  An Amiga can
accomplish anything an IBM can with the same degree of quality.
  The Amiga is also a generally faster machine.  My 16 Mhz A3000 is comparable
to a 20 or 25 Mhz 386 DX.  My A3000 also has complete 32 bit internal
pathways which run at the speed of the processor, this is comparable to 
MicroChannel or EISA, but not many IBM clones have this capablitity.
Also the custom graphics and sound coprocessors in the Amiga allows it
to handle graphics very quickly.  It also has built in 8 bit sound.  All of
this is extra on an IBM, (granted the price of clone is cheaper).
  The Amiga is at least as capable as basically any IBM or Clone.  With 
a 68040 on board it is comparable to any 486 (running at a comparable speed).
The Amiga AND IBM are great machines, both can do just about anything, 
some things each can do better than other, but in general they are both 
excellent machines.  Everyone may have a different opinion on 
which one they prefer, but that is it, an opinion.  Face it, IBM people
will always say IBM's are better and Amiga people will always say Amiga's
are better (same as Macs but who cares about them).  The fact is, whatever
you like the best may be better to you but may not be as good to me.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc