From: papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:18:24 GMT

>I believe that OS/2 started around the time of the original AT, but it 
>was not the same beast that it is today.  It has only recently reached
>the point that people are actually able to use it comfortably...

People could always use OS/2 comfortably.  It's the DOS suppor that
sucked.  In fact, OS/2 v1.x was one of the most stable operating
systems for any microcomputer.  It used to be *MORE* stable then it is
now.

>Did I say that it did?  Not once have I claimed that the Amiga invented
>multitasking or that it has some sort of lock on the concept.  OS/2 may
>be nice, but it looks like the MS tank is going to roll all over it and
>leave little Windows trackmarks behind.

If Windows rolls over it, it will be with NT, which looks to be a
technically better OS. IT is Object oriented, microkernel and portable.
If it wasn't for the stupid interface, I wouldn't mind using it at
all.

>As for the operating systems mentionned above, Windows does not have 
>true multitasking, it is more like what the Mac offers.  The others are
>all true multitasking systems, but they are not exactly geared to the
>same sorts of machines that AmigaDOS and OS/2 are.

Windows has full, "true" multitasking.  It does not have preemptive
multitasking, which is a subset of "true" multitasking.  If the
computer can make the user feel like he is doing two things at once he
is multitasking.  You can't change the definition every few years.
Windows NT and OS/2 3.0 will have even "truer"
multitasking...multiprocessing.  SCO does now, and so does the Mac,
(with an add-on).

>Please, I don't consider Joe's Bozo Clone Emporium prices to be a fair
>comparison to Commodore. 

The companies are Austin, Compudyne, Micro Express and Aplus, all
popular, stable companies.  Besides, when I can get a 486DX-33 for less
tehn $1000.00, I tend to not care where it came from, as long as it
works when I get it, and for a month after that, the company is welcome
to go out of business...I've got my money's worth :).


 Stick with Dell, Gateway, or one of the other
>reputable Clone assemblers, or a Clone manufacturer like IBM or Compaq.
>The lowest priced Gateway is a $1295 386sux-25 system with SVGA, 80M IDE,
>4M, ISA, etc.  An A1200 with 100M IDE drive and SVGA monitor goes for
>about the same or less and will blow the Gateway away.  Throwing in a
>cheap soundcard and OS/2 still won't get you what the Amiga offers.

You neglected to mention that for $200.00 more then the 386sx you get
about 10 times the machine...4MB RAm, 170 MB hard drive, Local BUS hard
drive, accelerated SVGA, and too applications.  Microsoft
works...$170.00, free with the system.  What does Amiga have in that
price/power range?

>I guess the A4000 and A1200 piss you off then, eh?  I'm on my third Amiga,
>a nice A4000, which replaces my A3000, which replaced my A1000.  I'll be
>buying an A1200 for use at home and the company I work for will be buying
>a few A1200s and A4000s for graphics and video work.  And we may be selling 
>several kiosk systems based on the new Amigas in the near future.  Given my
>investment in the Amiga and the fact that it is crucial to my livelihood,
>I won't be defecting any time soon.

Funny...looks like you already have:

>You want to know what's funny?  I make a living selling programs for the
>Clones, yet I prefer the Amiga for personal use.  The great thing is that
>everything I've bought in the last year, including my A4000, 17" monitor,
>ethernet, software, etc., has been paid for by Clone programming.  Ain't
>life great?  :-)
>
Those that haven't invested so much into the Amiga don't have as much
incentive as you to stay with it.  That's why they are leaving in
droves.