From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM is a game machine company
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:49:19 GMT
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <mykes.2549@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <30212@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>>In article <mykes.2235@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>>OK, folks, the last 3 machines that CBM has released are all game machines.
>>>[...] To be specific, the three machines are CDTV, A500+, and A600.

>>Didn't CDTV come out before the A3000T?  I thought so...

>Isn't the A3000T just a repackaged A3000?  What's it got besides more
>slots and a bigger power supply and a nicer case?

And you think maybe the A500+ is such hot news?  You're talking about new
C= models, not which have any new chip technology.  Allow me the same rules.

>I had one of the first few Mac II's.  The Mac did NOT have RTG until they
>did  ColorQuickDraw.  It took a new OS with bigger (2x) ROMs to make RTG
>work.  It is not something that the other Macs ever had (color capability).

So they didn't do color.  I said RTG, not color RTG.

>Comparing 1979 computing technology with 1992 technology is a losing 
>proposition.  Back in '79, you couldn't get an Apple II, even.

Sure you could.  When my friend Scott and I went to N.Y.C. in '77 to get his
PET computer, the same place sold Apple IIs.  Those were in stock, we had to
order the PET.  It was the only place in Manhattan that sold PETs, I imagine 
Apples were sold elsewhere.

>A 4x faster CPU sure helps me assemble 2 Meg ROM images faster than the 030 
>does...

That what I use my '040 for.  Though with the typical PClone hard disk 
interface, you're spending most of your compile time waiting to load stuff,
and in some cases, load the compiler.  If you go UNIX, you'll usually get
a fast hard disk interface, but many UNIXs have pretty inefficient disk
handling.  They all don't, but you don't usually have the chance to mix
and match.

>Again, comparing with 1979 technology is not relevent.  Compared to the IBM
>370 I used in 1973, the A3000 is better, so what's the point?

The point is, you were angry at C= for introducing an new entry level machine,
the A600.  I pointed out that, back when I got my first system, that would 
have made my head explode.  You're telling me that you're not a customer for 
that system, or any personal computer at all.  If all you do with a computer
is write C++ code and play around with graphics, maybe a workstation is 
what you want.  Hell, today I've used Amigas, Apollos, Macs, PClones, 
and DEC machines.  Each is where it is because it does that job well.  We're
not trying to sell $7000 UNIX machines to high school kids.  The best Amiga
I could dream up today couldn't outperform an Iris Crimson, even if there
was no development time, just because no 680x0 goes as fast an R4000.  That
doesn't mean there's no reason to make any more 680x0 boxes, it just may mean
that you don't want another one.  Me, I have no use for UNIX in my house.  I
don't need more CPU speed, more resolution, or more memory.  At work, some 
tools are only available under UNIX, so I use it.
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      BIX: hazy
      "What would they do if I just sailed away?" -Jimmy Buffett
 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy