From: lindblad@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jarkko Lindblad)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga 4000/Atari Falcon
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:24:29 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
: In article <BtM61A.Bs@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
: >>
: >>[OS/2 2.0]
: >>That's funny.  I run it at work on a 20MHz 386 (PS/2 80), and it's damn fast.
: >>With Procomm downloading at 2400 bps in the background, characters typed in a
: >>DOS text editor appear instantaneously.
: >
: >Big deal.  An Amiga 500 does the same.  How about with a ray trace
: >happening in the background?
: 
: Never tried it.  Have you?  Didn't think so.

Jerry, I remember how you once said that you _never_ bash Amiga, but
only defend PC from Amigians bashing. However now you do bash Amiga. I
did 2 minutes ago download at 2400 bps, ray traced on background,
compiles a C-program on background and wrote a letter using a word
processor (I also had text editor in ram). The word processor I used,
worked at FULL SPEED with NO slowdown. There is absolutely NO reasons
why it would not have worked at full speed as there are such things as
priorities.
	Ah, and I have A500.

: >>Don't compare OS/2 2.0 to AmigaDOS -- AmigaDOS
: >>isn't even close in terms of functionality,
: >
: >Of course it is... pre-emptive multitasking, GUI based system.  Probably
: >better than OS/2 in real-time response.  Addresses 1.8 GIG of memory.
: >Multi-media capable... make that natural.
: 
: It still isn't even close to OS/2 in terms of functionality.

One can also say that OS/2 is not even close to AmigaOS in terms of
functionality - there are lots of differences in the OSes. OS/2 is
better than AmigaOS in some things and has more functionality on some
areas, but what you fail to see is the fact that AmigaOS also is
better on some things and has more functionality on some areas. To me
it seems that you're saying that "Aeroplane is not even close to ship
in terms of functionality" - you're comparing apples and oranges.

: >Less buggy (by your own
: >admission above...
: 
: I said that OS/2 has bugs; I never said it was *less* buggy than AmigaDOS.
: Quit putting words in my mouth.

I assume you mean AmigaOS, not AmigaDOS?

: >YOU compared it to pre-1.3 AmigaDOS).  Full
: >Command-Line capability (WITHOUT the great "design goal" of being
: >DOS compatible).
: 
: Like I said, if you don't like the OS/2 command line, get the free 4OS2 or
: GNU bash.

It's funny how you now compare OS/2 with extra PD/commercial goodies
to stock AmigaOS - we can of course do the same thing too.

: >Actually, DOS capability (including Windows :-() is only an emulator
: >or BridgeBoard away (for the masochists in the crowd).
: 
: How much for one of those BridgeBoards?  What's on it, a 286?  If you think
: a BridgeBoard is comparable to having a PC, you're sadly mistaken.

True - Bridgeboard is much MORE than a PC. It's much better to have
two computers oin one box because of shared resources and easiness of
exchanging information between the systems.

: >All kludged in.  All Intel byte-swapped garbage.  Specialized CPU registers
: >(how many general purpose ones?).  No sound or video-support out of the
: >box.

: As for your comments about byte swapping and x86 CPUs -- if you can't
: deal with the fact that there are different CPU architectures out there,
: do yourself a favor and get out of the industry.

Okay, if I now add my commet to this we're surely on our way to the
4535464th CPU war. Perhaps it is better if I save us lot's of
bandwidth and don't start to proove you that 68k-series is
be...oops...I almost started the war....better stop now....stop it
Jarkko, stop stop sopt. Stop. Huh, finally I managed to stop myself.
Damn, I'm thirsty.

--
Jarkko Lindblad
lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi