From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Subject: Re: Byte's Amiga 4000 review...
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:43:26 GMT

In article <C0nnDn.3ML@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> papresco@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>>>REXX.  THEY were multitasking before you were born.  So what in OS/2
>>>was "ripped off" of the Amiga?
>>
>>How long have they had a popular widely available multitasking OS for the
>>Intel architecture?  As for being ripped off, ask the software engineers
>>who worked on OS/2 about the Amigas in their labs...
>
>What is it that you think is in OS/2 that wasn't invented (probably by
>IBM) long, long before the Amiga?  Just because there hasn't been a

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...

>"widely available multitasking OS for the Intel architecture" doesn't
>mean that multitasking originated with the Amiga.  If the Amiga had
>never existed, OS/2 would have been multitasking in competition with
>Windows, NeXT, SysVR4.2, Solaris, NT and VMS.

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.

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.

>Or did they ALL steal the concept from the Amiga.

Again, where did I say that above?  

>As to REXX...It's not a very nice language anyways.  The only reason
>IBM includes it is because ALL of their operating systems do.  I would
>prefer if they would replace it with Perl or something.  It was by no
>means "borrowed" from the Amiga.

I agree, I think that REXX absolutely sucks and I don't use it.  The
RexxMaster is not running on my machine because I have no use for it.

>>No, but you can get an A1200 for around $600 that is comparable to 486sx
>>SVGA systems for twice the price.
>
>An SVGA 486 system without hard drive would be the same price as the
>$600.00 A1200.  Except you would have a real CPU.  For kicks you could
>throw in a soundboard, for $250.00 that has a 68000 on it.  No, the
>Amiga does NOT have a patent on coprocessing.  There are cheap
>soundboards for the PC that have as much CPU power as the A600!

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

>>Paul, why are you worried about the Amiga?  You obviously like the Clones,
>>so use them and be happy with them.  No one here cares what machine you use
>>and your arguments are simply ignored by most people.  Are you like many 
>>others who have sold their Amigas and bought Clones?  Aren't you happy with
>>it?  Why do you read and post to the Amiga groups?  Worried that you might
>>have made the wrong decision?  Or are you an MB wannabe?
>
>I spend time here combatting inaccuracies like 486s 
>that sell for twice the price of A1200.  Check out this month's
>computer shopper.  486s for <$1000.00 WITH hard drive AND monitor!
>Take out the hard drive and monitor, and you are at A1200 price!

I don't buy back-alley computers and don't suggest that anyone else does
either.  Commodore is a real company, not some bozo with a screwdriver
and a nameplate.

>This is of course  a ridiculous comparison.  A 486sx with no hard drive
>is useless, and an A1200 without hard drive is pretty damn near useless
>too.  It is excellent competiton for a super nintendo, though.

Super Nintendo?  Blech, I'll pass on the cheezy fatbits scaling and all
of the funky punch and jump games.  I fail to see what the attraction is
with the current crop of video consoles.

>I also hang out here for kicks watching the Amiga users defect one by
>one.

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.

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?  :-)

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

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy