From: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4000: Is it so great?
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:07:10 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

cl129502@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>Do you ever wonder why the Amiga has always offered hardware options to allow
>it to emulate a PC, while the IBM has never had this option for their machines? 
>The answer is because the IBM is a better machine than the Amiga.  Commodore
>is now releasing their new 4000, claiming its so great.  Well, right now you
>can buy a 486 DX 50 MHz PC for under $3000 with 24 bit color.  Or a 66 MHz for
>about the same price.  All this plus incredible third party support and a user
>base that makes the Amiga's look like Downhome, USA compared to New York City. 
>Another big thing in the Amiga community is its multitasking.  Well, OS/2 has
>been out for the IBM for a while now, and Desqview even longer.  It seems to me
>that CBM is trying to just catch up to the high echelon that the IBM is
>currently residing at.  I used to own an Amiga, so I know what I'm talking
>about, and when I say the Amiga crashes a lot, I'm not kidding.  I remember
>being on that computer many times and seeing that infamous "Guru Meditation
>Error" and now being on my IBM compatible and thinking "Whats all the fuss
>about?"  Seriously folks, face the facts:  The Amiga is still a couple of steps
>back on the evolution scale, and just losing ground.

First of all, please keep this kind of discussions to csa.advocacy.

Now, if Amiga needs to emulate an IBM because an IBM is better, how
do you explain the fact that Amiga can emulate a Mac, yet, run everything
(b/w at least) and run faster than a mac with similar configuration?

The fact is: it is all due to marketing.  If IBM clones weren't that 
popular, and the price wasn't that low, people wouldn't be buying them.

If you actually understand what "GURU Mediation" does, you might actually
understand that the Amiga is a better computer.  I personally have crashed
many many IBM (and IBM clones) and Macs.  I seldom get any response as
to what was wrong--IBM clones most likely would just hang... whereas (if
you are lucky), macs will display a "bombed message" and tell you 
what happened.  However, they are not guaranteed to tell you what's wrong.
The Amiga, on the other hand, tells you exactly what happened.  Furthermore,
It will tell you *everytime* after it crashed.  I would imagine a programmer
would prefer knowing what crashed his/her machines... maybe you don't. 

Yes, I wouldn't deny a lot of IBM clones are better than an Amiga (now).  
The reason is simple--there are more developers and more customers at the
IBM side.                  

The Amiga isn't a bad computer.  It has a lot of advanced feature (though
other brand of computers have been gradually catching up).

Too bad even you, as an EX-amiga owner, didn't even see it.  

Yours sincerely,
Kelvin

PS: all followups redirected to csa.advocacy
                                            ____________________________
 __________________________________________/ Undergraduate, Class of 94 \___ 
/____________________________________________________________\_____/________\
|  Kelvin    /   Internet: Kelvin.Leung@Dartmouth.edu       ({o   o})       |
|   Leung   /       or     abs0@Coos.Dartmouth.edu        <  #  ^  #  >     | 
|__________/_______________________________________________(vvvvvvvvv)______|
| "Unless someone like you cares a whole |  Do you see a doll? a beast?     |
|  awful lot, nothing is going to get    |                                  |
|  better.  It's not."                   |  There are always more than one  |
|               -- Dr. Seuss (The Lorax) |  side to any story...            |
 \______________________________________/ \________________________________/