From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: Obituary [Amiga's] in Silicon Valley newspaper
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:24:52 GMT

In article <kehlet.05ky@kehlet.adsp.sub.org> kehlet@kehlet.adsp.sub.org (Jesper Kehlet) flames severely:
>In article <1992Jul16.102852.3737@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au> davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) writes:
>
>> I see the Amiga as the last of the great proprietary architectures of the
>> early to mid eighties.  One of the reasons I continue to support it is that it
>> maintains the spirit of times gone by.  But, because times have moved on, to
>> open systems and vendor independence, we can't expect a machine like the Amiga
>> to do really well.
>
>One of the "last great proprietary architectures of the early to mid
>eighties"?  Hey, you should be writing articles on ancient history!

In computing terms, ten years ago IS ancient history!

>I do not agree, that it "maintains the spirit of times gone by" -- doesn't
>that count for the peecee clowns as well?  The peecee architecture is much
>older than the Amiga, the Macintosh is in the same line of concept, that
>created the Amiga

Firstly, by "times gone by", I meant the computer industry as it was before
most of it was forced into IBM conformity.  I enjoyed those times - they died
in the mid-eighties, just after the Mac, ST, and Amiga were released.  The
Amiga was the last of those, and is just the last of those proprietary
architectures.  I should have added - the last such machine to make any real
impact.  There have been more recent, yet still interesting, machines like the
Acorn Archimedes, and the MM/1, but they haven't made any great impact.  Then
there's the NeXT, which is an important machine, but which tries to be a
mainstream Unix box, so I'm not calling it proprietary, although it's a
borderline case.

>-- and all you do, is sound like a true peecee clown
>owner, trying to flame out Amigas and still cover up your back -- you're a
>coward!

Now I know how poor Colin Adams felt when some ignorant cretin called him a
PC owner.  I don't have to defend myself to you, so let me just say it once.
I've been and Amiga owner and advocate for more than six years now.  In fact,
I own two Amigas - my original A1000, which I couldn't make myself part with,
and an accelerated A2000, complete with bridgeboard and display enhancer.  I
have never owned a PC, and don't plan on buying one anytime soon.

>> But, there's no reason why it can't be moderatly successful as a niche machine,
>> even if that niche is only old-style enthusiasts.  It has sold over 3 million
>> units.  Ten years ago, that would have been great.  I think it's still
>> acceptible, and should be able to justify reasonable third party support.
>
>Old-style enthusiasts?  Niche machine?  You sound, like you're working on
>some Cray II or something like that -- having problems with controlling
>your ego?!?

No, I'm just a humble network manager.  My ego's fine, thanks.  Is your ego so
fragile that you can't handle someone pointing out the facts about the Amiga?
Face it, it's a niche machine - i.e. it's not mainstream.  It's not even close.
I'm saying that that's ok - it doesn't worry me.  We're fooling ourselves if
we believe that the Amiga can take over the PC universe - it's a pipedream.

>> Exactly.  I actually _like_ having a machine no one's heard of.  Sort of like
>> being in an elite club.  You pay extra for the privelege, but it's enjoyable
>> being here...
>
>You're out of your mind!  Elite club?  You get the Amiga cheapo and with a
>lot more features than e.g. the peecee clowns.

Doubletake here.  Amigas are cheaper yet with more features than PC clones?
Where on Earth do you live?  I can buy a 486 with SVGA, .28 pitch monitor,
4 megs ram, and a 100 meg HD for the same amount as an A3000 without monitor.
The only area where the Amiga is cheaper is at the extreme low end if you want
an A600 with hard drive (US$500 in Australia) and you don't buy a monitor.
Even so, I could almost buy a 286 with VGA for that...

No, Amigas are more expensive, but I don't mind paying the extra for them.  It
does mean, though, that I find it hard to recommend to others.

>With a lot better
>operating system than e.g. the Mac.  Etc. etc. etc.

Whether it's better than OS/2 is another question, but I still prefer AmigaOS
to anything else I've used.


-- 

David Meiklejohn                  | Internet : davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
Computer Systems Officer, QDPI    | Fax      : +61 70 92 3593
Mareeba, Australia                | Voice    : +61 70 92 1555