From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Subject: Re: HELP--AMIGA OR IBM PC CLONE?
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:00:20 GMT

In article <C0p5B4.HF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> papresco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>As long as you're running all Windows software, you're laughing.  All these
>>"SVGA" cards have drivers for OS/2, I suppose?
>
>Mine does...most do.

And hopefully most of them will have someone around to write the new drivers
when Windows and OS/2 are updated.  Some drivers even break going from 3.0
to 3.1 and require a rewrite.  

>>And neither can most (affordable) monitors.  Oh, they'll do it, but try
>>separating two single pixel lines, a pixel apart, on most 14" monitors at
>>anything above 800x600 some time...
>
>And yet there is a noticeable improvement in 1024X768 over 800X600 even
>on a 14" monitor.  

800x600 is a really bad mode on many monitors anyway.  The picture is very
narrow and looks rather distorted, requiring fiddling with the controls to
get everything setup.  Going from 640x480 to 1024x768 doesn't seem to have
as much of a problem on most monitors.

>I thought the idea was that you WEREN'T supposed to be able to tell the
>difference between lines of pixels.  That means they are small enough
>that you can't see the dots.  That's GOOD.

True, but the reason you cannot see the dots is because the monitor cannot
handle the resolution properly.  It is similar to the effect when using
640 or more pixels on an NTSC or PAL composite display, there just simply
is not enough resolution to display each pixel.  This smudging effect may
be nice for smoothing things out, sort of a free anti-aliasing, but it is
not good if accuracy is required.

>>It is.  You should meet its cousin, 1408x564.  Since it's interlaced, it's
>>exceptionally useful for video titling work.
>
>And exceptionally useless for productivity work...unless you like head
>aches.

Why is it that video work is not considered productive?  If someone is 
making a living off of video titling or other video work, are they not
being productive?  

>>>Vesa spec bandwith is much higher then EITHER of these.  Byte says
>>>150Mps sec...that's 19M/sec.  They also say: "Few of today's
>>>applications require more then 100Mbs"...Vesa spec local bus has
>>>bandwith to spare.
>>
>>Yes, that's like saying the SCSI standard allows for 4MB/sec, so therefore
>>my particular hard drive and SCSI interface go that fast.  You're basing an
>>argument on a theoretical spec.
>
>No I'm basing the arguement that the ISA bus is a limitation on today's
>PCs.

Zorro III has a theorectical maximum of 150 megabytes per second, therefore
it is vastly superior to the VESA bus.  If VESA has bandwidth to spare, 
Zorro III has bandwidth to solve the world's economic crisis...

>>Let's get this straight.  "SVGA" is *NOT* anything and everything.  It must
>>bear some passing relationship to VGA, which is strictly a dumb card.  If you
>>have hardware bit blitting and line drawing, you're talking TIGA or S3, etc.
>>Not SVGA.
>
>SVGA is anything that can do the "strictly dumb card mode."  Let me
>assure you, these accelerated video cards can do that.  They are,
>therefore, SVGA.  Tiga and S3 are SVGA...as you'll see if you see any
>review of SVGA cards.

Why do you act as if no one knows anything about Clones except for you?
In case you don't know, David, I, and others on this group happen to 
make our living, at least in part, by programming, supporting, and using
Clones.  The difference is that we also use Amigas and other machines and
don't feel that the Clones are the end-all-be-all platform.  Are you a
programmer or just a user?  The reason I ask is that users typically have
a much more narrow view of things than programmers...

>>It has nothing to do with Windows.  Try installing a simple little tape
>>controller card in a PC which already has a SCSI interface, a network card,
>>and a Targa board, then get back to me.  Until you've tried supporting dozens
>>of PCs in a range of hardware configurations, you really have no idea just how
>>cretinous they can be.
>
>Luckily, the great majority of us only deal with one or two PCs at a
>time, and upgrade something in them less then once every 6 months.

Sounds rather boring to me.  We get new toys to play with on a weekly 
basis and spend quite a bit of time with configurations.  While none of
us at work have trouble with this, the same cannot be said for the average
user.  It is no wonder that support lines are needed given the nightmares
caused by the Clones.

>The rest have someone like YOU doing their upgrades.  And you get
>employment.  This point is as beat to death by Amiga users as the bus
>thing, although I suspect you recognize that it is weak, because it is
>not much of a problem for most people.

Hah!  Most people expect you to answer their questions for free.  I beg to
differ with you that it is not much of a problem for most people...

>>But, what if some had Amigas, and some Macs, and some Unix boxes, and some
>>even had PCs.  We don't all need to own Amigas.  But, I object to the
>>stifling sameness of a PC-only world.  Alas, that seems to be the way we're
>>heading.  Maybe RISC workstations will save us yet.  I hope so.
>
>There is no "sameness" in the PC-world.  95% of all Amigas run
>AmigaDOS, the rest run that rotten unix you have.  PC users can run 20
>different versions of Unix, OS/2, Windows, NT, Dos, QNX, NeXTStep,
>DR-DOS, CPM-86, you name it.  That's not stifling sameness, it's
>resounding choice.

Too bad you all have to drop back to sorry-ass MSDOS to run anything of the
oh-so-wonderful software that Clone owners always exclaim about...

>Most Amiga users use only the built in graphics hardware.  PC
>accelerated video boards go from $150.00->$3000.00 depending on the
>power you want.  That's not stifling "sameness" it's wonderful options.

Many Amiga users are quite happy with the stock graphics.  I assure you
that I'd need a pricy card in a Clone to make me want to switch from my
A4000...

>Most Amiga users use "standard" sound.  PC users can choose from one of
>20 new sound boards, most released in the last six months.

Many of those differ from the others in name only...

>Most Amiga users use one of 2 or 3 wordprocessors.  There are 97 PC
>wordprocessors.

Ooohh, don't excite me like that!  97 word processors?  Wow!  I need to
get a Clone so I can use all of them!!!!!

>All Amiga users use some form of Zorro bus.  PC users can choose one of
>VESA,EISA, ISA, MCA, PCI and any combination of them!

That's your most stupid argument yet.

>All Amiga users use Motorola chips.  PC users can use AMD, Cyrix, or
>Intel.

Please explain how this is an advantage.  A clone of a piece of junk
is still a piece of junk...

>Where is this stifling sameness.  Just because PCs are everywhere
>doesn't mean yours has to look like everyone else!  Use a different OS,
>different applications, a different programming language...dare to be
>different without giving up compatibility with the application
>development standard.

Your last statement reveals why many Amiga owners loath the thought of
using a Clone: "compatibility with the application development standard."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not explain that to you.

Skip Sauls, Amiga Advocate
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu



Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.games