From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:01:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.235511.69263@watson.ibm.com> arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick) writes:

[ ]
>
>"In many ways the Amiga is far better..."
>In many ways the Mac is far better.  So?  That's not the issue.
>The issue is: The Emplant is not a perfect replacement for a Mac.  The Mac is
>more than software emulation.  It's programs running with NuBUS cards;
>being able to expand with an accelerated 24-bit graphics card; adding VRAM
>SIMMs to a quadra to get 24-bit color; built-in Mac sound working naturally
>with the rest of the Mac OS.  Zorro III is not NuBUS.  Who cares if it
>competes favorably?  We are talking about 100% compatibility.  Remember the
>early PC clones that were 96% compatible?  They are no longer around because
>compatibility is 100% COMPATIBILITY.  An Amiga with Emplant is not a Mac.
>It looks and acts a lot like one, but it is not the same thing.

In all the years I've used Mac's the only NuBus card I've ever used was the
graphics' card. Most Mac users don't use the slots. It's not as though there's
a pressing need except for very specialized cases.
>
>If you want to, consider the Amiga/Emplant combination when deciding to
>move up from a smaller computer, or buy a new one.  I do not have a problem
>with that.

I not moving up, down or anywhere at this time. I simply find the idea of
an A4000+Emplant+BB to be interesting. Moreover one of the reasons I do
find it interesting is the preemptive nature of the OS. An OS which can't
multitask has very little appeal to me anymore.
>
>>The Quadra is nice. It's really meant for A/UX which has never been accepted.
>>Might help if Apple started using DMA properly.
>
>It's not really meant for A/UX.  It's meant to be a fast Mac.  If I
>had the money, I would get a Quadra 950 (i.e. rather than spend the money
>on a Amiga 3000 and $3000 (or more) towards a new car, or whatever).
>Why would you buy a faster computer?
>        -to run the OS and standard applications faster
>        -to run a more demanding OS
>        -to run more demanding applications
>        -to get better performance from the programs you do have
>         (Paint programs, renderers, compilers)
>A/UX is one of these reasons.  For me, getting better performance
>from compilers is the primary reason for considering a faster computer.

Why bother getting a fast computer that hogs the cpu while compiling. It would
seem to me that you'd be better off with a 486+OS/2 or a NeXT or even an Amiga.
Most of the native MacOS apps run fine with a ci. The Quadra is not that much
faster. In fact performance using transcendental functions on an 040 is 
poor (on any 040).
 
I can see some reasons for getting a Quadra. But they aren't overwhelming.
Why spend the money when for far less you can compile on a RISC workstation 
at far greater speeds? In fact, apart from the consumer computers and the
PowerBooks, why would anybody buy a Mac now when the PowerPC will, presumably
give you a worthwhile boost in power.
 
Bottom line: If you were trying to sell us a Quadra with these arguments, it
             wouldn't work.
 
Philip McDunnough
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy