From: pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oh my God! Help my friend not buy an IBM!
Date: 20 Nov 1992 12:54:35 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.unh.edu

In article <1992Nov18.232309.18061@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com> jgrimm@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Jeffrey Grimmett 9999) writes:
>Quoth pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro):
>
>]> >First of all, quite a fair comparison.  Let's pit a 66 Mhz machine against
>]> >a 16 or 25 MegaHertz machine.  Oh, very good!
>
>]> Here we go again... :)  Any comparison in the same price range is fair.
>
>Yep, here we go.  Commodore's MSRP vs Slick Willy's Computer Sales and Bingo
>Parlor.  I assure you I can get a 4000 for significantly less than the MSRP,
>but rather than compare shopping savvy let's keep this technical.  My argument
>stands.  A 66 MHz beastie RETAILS for a bit more than what most will pay for it.

The system I had in mind was the Gateway 486DX2-66, which sells for
something like $2995 including 340MB hard drive (local bus IDE), 15"
monitor, and 24-bit local bus accelerated graphics (VESA VL-bus).
Gateway is no Dell or Compaq, but they aren't "Slick Willy" either.  I
know - I've used systems like that, and there is no comparison, unless
Gateway has gone WAY downhill in the last 6 months or so.

>]> Come on now, lets be realistic.  How hard is it to find a clone that
>]> comes bundled with a mouse?
>
>Sure.  I can get ya one for five bucks.  Any takers?  Hmph.  Thought so.  :-)

Well, the system I'm talking about has a Microsoft mouse, which is a
good, solid mouse.  I've used the $15 jobs, and again, no comparison.

>However, time and time again folks on the beemer side of the fence have
>touted thier machines as ideal multimedia (IBM's term, not mine).  To
>utilize your CPU properly for multimedia MY OPINION is that you need to
>free it from the yeoman's task of moving display graphics to the display
>buffer.  Thus my contention.

I doubt the PC platform will ever be ideal for multimedia, but since
I, and most other PC users I know have little interest in multimedia
as Amiga people define it, this isn't a big problem for me.  I do,
however, have interest in fast, deep graphics, which a local bus
accelerated card gives (especially the new ATI Ultras with the Mach 32
processor).

I'm not saying the Amiga doesn't have fast graphics, just that, once
you add fast graphics to a clone, you can't automatically assume the
Amiga will be faster due to its coprocessors anymore.  CPU speed
becomes more of an issue.  For example, it might be valid to say that
an A3000 is faster in many ways than a 486 with ISA-bus SVGA and
Windoze.  But now that PCs have several "real" operating systems to
choose from, and a standard local bus for graphics, things become much
more complex.

>]> And again, one only needs to pick up an issue of Computer Shopper to
>]> see how many clones these days come bundled with coprocessed and/or
>]> local-bus graphics cards.  These days, a 24-bit coprocessed graphics
>]> card doesn't cost much more than a good SVGA card.
>
>Must be looking at a different Shopper.  Or comparing high-end SVGA to low-
>end 24 bit... as I don't see it, myself.

The Diamond Speedstar 24X was about $180 last time I looked.  It
supports 640x480x24-bit and uses the Western Digital coprocessor chip.
Most of the dumb SVGA cards seem to have fallen to around $100,
though, so I guess it is still more expensive.  Coprocessed chips
don't cost a whole lot more than dumb SVGA chips, so there really is
no reason why there should be a big price difference.  24-bit DACs
have come down a lot lately also.

Paul
-- 
Paul Secinaro
pss1@kepler.unh.edu
Synthetic Vision and Pattern Analysis Laboratory
UNH Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering