From: 8800529@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: What makes OS on ROM _WORSE_ than one on disk???
Date: 30 Aug 92 11:40:32 GMT
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW

In article <Btp9uG.5nw@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
>talan@tension.UUCP (Dave Bicking) writes:
>
>
>As a friend of mine pointed out, you can have another *megabyte* (or two) for
>the cost of the ROMs, and in RAM the software runs faster.  It's also easily
>user-upgradeable, and doing so yourself won't void any warranty agreements.
>Loading the OS entirely from disk, in my opinion, is vastly superior to slow,
>user-hostile firmware.  The target of CBM should be to make the Amiga easy to
>use, upgrade, and code on.  Accomplishing that would make the Amiga much easier
>to *sell*.

	Those roms better be on HARD disk !!


>>You next infer that the Amiga ROM upgrade is vastly more expensive than a disk
>>upgrade.  Well, compare a $45 Amiga ROM to the $150 Windows package and the
>>equally expensive OS/2.  I can get DOS 5.0 from a computer store for "as
>>little as" $70.  Gee, ROMS are terrible, aren't they?  Too bad we don't NEED
>>at least 4 MEGS of ram just to run ONE process.  I wish I had my OS on disk!

	It's a diffren story. Windows and OS/2 were published still buggy
with a promise of a cheap upgrade. And depending on what comes with the rom
pakage no one must complain about the quality of the pakage ie. documentation.
You can also get the roms much cheaper as replacement parts. 


>
>The Amiga ROMs for 2.04 take up, I believe, 512K.  The rest is on disk.  I
>haven't seen this $45 price tag on the ROMs, either.  More like $90.  Windows
>and OS/2 are both $50 as upgrades, by the way.  Just because MS and IBM have
>outrageous pricing schemes (sort of like CBM's WRT new hardware) on their
>software doesn't mean that it must be more expensive for them to produce the
>software on disk.  Most of the cost of any software package in terms of
>distribution materials is in the *documentation*.  Publishing is expensive.
	How does the "Upgrade" version of OS/2 and Win 3.1 compare to WB2.04 ?
And how much diff did you get ie. was it worth the value.
Consider 1.3 to 2.04 and then who used win 3.0 


>
>>Dude, the A1000 came out about the time the MAC 512 was in rumor stage.  Do
>>you even HEAR about the Mac 512?  ANYWHERE?  Be DAMN glad you can even RUN the
>>new Amiga Dos!  Try and run Windows or OS/2 on a standard AT - Any luck?  When
>>was the last time Apple or IBM offered a massive discount on their new models
>>to people with an Apple IIgs or IBM AT?  *Yeesh*  Give a little service, and
>>people bitch because they don't have the WORLD delivered at their feet!
>
>IBM controls very little of the PC market - their competition offers machines
>at prices that make CBM's "discounts" look silly.  CBM thinks that they have
>a captive audience in the Amiga world, and that they can do what they like
>with us.  They're wrong.  I already have another platform lined up if they
>keep screwing with us and refuse to pour funds into R&D as they *need* to.
>That platform is NeXT.  Not popular in any sense of the word, but cutting edge.
>I'm sick of being left in the dark as all the software advances go elsewhere.

	Hehehehe, you want an NeXT ? More like the bleading edge of
technology :-) Applications not supporting you :-) And you want NeXT.
You want Microsoft get Amax 2.5 and Word 5.0 But to go for NeXT
just for the reasons you mention above ?!?!?!?!?


> 
>>>+++
>>>NO CARRIER
>> 
>> 
>>Dave
>
>Very friendly attitude.

	George
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc