From: mustang@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Paul Christopher Miranda (I love Cheese))
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Macintosh VR
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:58:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <Bxrqtu.DGw@rahul.net> jonathan@rahul.net (Jonathan Heiliger) writes:
>In article <74097@apple.Apple.COM> billc@Apple.COM (Bill Cockayne) writes:
>
>>As for forgetting the Mac, you seem to forget that one of the Macintosh
>>computers is presently the FASTEST pc on the market (yes it blows 586 machines
>>away) (oh yeah, don't compare a pc running DOS to a Mac, DOS is outdated).

Sorry, but the MAC OS is so fat and disgusting that it cripples the otherwise
good Motorola hardware.

>   Not really.  A 68040 doesn't even come close to Intel's 486/66MHz DX chip 
>which is in a public/beta stage.  The Plantim will most definately beat away 
>the 68040, even after the accerlation.  That was Apple's mistake to not make 
>any higher end machines but to attempt to steal the 386 market away instead.

Apple is selling on it's strengths of being a very easy to use OS for people
who don't want to know about computers, just use them..  
I doubt there is anyone knowledgeable who believes that the 486 is faster thanb
the 040.. (even Intel engineers I would wager).. 

A Mac/PC or Intel/Moto argument is pretty useless so if you want to argue this,
use e-mail.. A good argument is which platform is better for VR...

1. cost - PC's are dirt cheap.. Macs are overpriced.
2. processor power - as I said.. i believe the 040 is faster than a 486 so
	that would be in the Mac's favor, but it's not a big enough difference
	to be worth it.
3. video power - In common, stock configuration (A Mac LC vs SVGA for example)
	The Mac OS has more overhead than the PC and is slower.
	In high-end configuration, a quadra has much improved performance, but
	so do PC video boards.. no winner here.
4. mass storage - about the same.
5. input devices - they both have cheap mice at the low end, higher end devices
	require alternate interfacing so there is still no winner
6. programming - VR demands assembly language routines and anyone who has 
	programmed in x86 and 68k will tell you that x86 is scary and nasty
	the Mac platform wins here
7. market - the PC market is absolutely huge.. Mac is big too, but the installed
	base of PCs cannot be beat.

my conclusion.. the PC is a superior platform because it is cheaper and has less
OS overhead..
If anyone can think of some other points of comparison, let it rip!

Part II :

forget part one, shell out the extra bucks and buy an Amiga 4000.. the graphics
speed stomps anything but high-end (expensive) boards, it has the superior
processor (IMO), the OS is supportive to applications (it has true multitasking,
something both previous platforms lack), it may not be as friendly as a Mac, but
it provides much more power and control. Programming is a shear joy with the
latest generation of compilers (use C and recode the guts as necessary). 
As for price, it goes for ~ 2500 last time I checked.. I think the extra cost
is worth it.

Remember: any responses to this should be on the basis of a machine's suitability
for VR, not spreadsheets!


-- 
"I have feelings too, I just choose to  | Paul Miranda  likes cheese 
 to hide them underneath bitter denial" | mustang@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-- Ms. Musso on "Parker Lewis" (FOX TV) | -- THIS SPACE FOR RENT --