Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!ginosko!uunet!van-bc! From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amigas in the big picture. Keywords: reliability quality speed graphics sound compare Message-ID: <648@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> Date: 22 Jul 89 21:16:37 GMT Lines: 150 To: van-bc!rnews In <38517@sgi.SGI.COM>, mplevine@sgi.com (Marshall P. Levine) writes: >This message is to everyone who has ever insulted or supported the Amiga, >especially to those who have recently publicized their views on the network. > ... >I just want to try to present the facts objectively and bring some people back >down to earth. Always nice to get facts. > Forget graphics and sound for a minute. The Amiga was not the fastest >machine on the market. Apple was pushing (or about to push) 8 Mhz. IBM was on >the 12Mhz frontier. No, it wasn't the fastest, but it came pretty close. Don't forget that clock speed comparisons are virtually meaningless when talking about dissimilar architectures. When comparing similar architectures, as might be the case when talking about the Mac, they have more meaning, but you must also take into account the OS, and what it has resposibility for. > Remember 1.1? How about 1.0? How many software failures did you have per >day? I remember the 1.0 upgrade, after which the machine got more stable, though still pretty fragile. 1.1 was a lot better, and my crashes (those that I was not responsible for) diminished to being measured in 'crashes per week', rather than 'crashes per day'. > Be honest, VGA is damned good. Damned good is a bit strong, but yes, it's good. > So is the Mac ][ 24-bitplane graphics. 24 bitplanes is damned good. As to whether '24 bitplane graphics' is damned good, rather depends on the OS and the hardware driving it. >A palette of 16.7 million colors is better than a palette of 4096 colors. In general terms, yes. A palette of 16.7 million colours is totally useless on a machine that can only display 2 of those colours at a time. I choose to use this example only to point out that the number of colours in the palette is only a small part of the picture. What can the machine do with those colours? How many can it display at once? How's the animation capability? > 400 lines of non-interlaced vertical resolution is better than 400 lines of >interlaced vertical resolution. I thought you were going to present facts. Ask anyone involved with video production which is better, and he will tell you that 400 lines non-interlaced is a waste of resources. THe first thing he will ask you is "How much will it cost me to convert that to PAL or NTSC?" > How about processor speed? The IBM and compatibles family is in the 50Mhz >range now (or is it 60?). Where is the Amiga? The vast majority of us are >still running at 7.14Mhz. It's in the 33 Mhz range, or less if you don't want to hack your accelerator board. 25 MHz is pretty much it for top end without hacking. Bear in mind though, that the same clock speeds on different architectures and different OS's do not imply the same throughput. I did hear about a 50 Mhz Intel part, but have yet to see one advertised at any price. As to the 'vast majority', I would ask you what the 'vast majority' of folks are running at in the IBMPCloneMac world. The vast majority, I can guarantee you, are NOT running at 50 MHz. Check out a Mac II sometime. You will see, if you keep an open mind, a lot of interesting features, but you will be near tears when you realize that Apple has once again managed to take a good, fast processor and cripple it with the OS. I won't even consider a single tasking computer for the appleation 'best'. > Now, technology from the higher markets is starting to invade the lower >markets. Specifically, the cost of high-performance graphics workstations is >falling to the level of high-end personal computers. That's true, but only if you are talking about Mac and IBM. > But now, there is the personal IRIS. A fully configured >personal IRIS (96 bitplanes, 24 available for color in each window, 24 bit >RGB color mode and 12 bit colormap mode available simultaneously, built-in >z-buffering, built-in Gouraud shading, standard UNIX system V, etc...) costs >around $20,000-$25,000. A minimally configured Personal IRIS can be obtained >for $12,000 - less than a fully configured Mac ][, and MUCH faster than any >Mac or IBM PC. Like I said, only if you are talking about Mac and IBM. That's about double a non-minimal (in fact a fairly loaded) Amiga. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the minimal Personal IRIS is devoid of just about everything mentioned in the $25,000 model, and needs all sorts of addon software/hardware to make it at all useful. As for prices on high-end workstations, that $12,000 will buy a lot more if you spend it on a SPARCStation, but that still doesn't put it into the 'home computer' classification. I probably have close to $6,000 invested in my 2000 setup, but that includes a lot of extras, like extra ram, 200 megs worth of hard drives, two HD controllers, a flickeFixer and Multisync monitor, etc. Add to that a few grand worth of software, and I have a machine that is better suited to what I do than the $12,000 IRIS. >So what's my point? Those of you who run around waving Commodore flags and >yelling, "The Amiga is the best personal computer on the market" are forgetting >a few things. The Amiga is not the fastest PC, not even close. The Amiga >hasn't the best sound. It doesn't have the highest memory capacity. Nor >does it have the best (quality/speed) graphics. Those of us who say that are saying it with perfectly valid reasons, every bit as valid as yours are. If _you_ choose to call a Personal IRIS a 'personal computer', then it will definitely colour your view of whether the Amiga is 'the best personal computer' or not. Show me a Personal IRIS that will do all the Amiga will do, and at a price comparable, and I will call them both the best personal computers available. > But these are comparisons against the state of the art. How about user support? Commodore isn't exactly known for being a pillar of customer support! For a long time, their management was changing faster than modern technology. What does this have to do with whether the Amiga is or is not the best personal computer on the market? That being said, let me also say that I have had no problems with customer support. Of course I don't sit back and wait for them to come to me and hand the support to me with an engraved invitation to call them. > For a long time, it was impossible to talk with any real Amiga technicians or >engineers. Bull! I have been speaking with Amiga techs and engineers since 1985. Are you perhaps waiting for them to come to your door and ask how things are going? > How about software? How about it? You want word processors, and I don't. Sounds pretty subjective to me. Bottom line here is that I still say, and will continue to say, as long as it's true by my standards, that the Amiga is the single best personal computer on the market. The factors I take into account may be far different than the ones you take into account, but that does not make them any less valid. You have not presented anything factual that makes me change my mind. You have presented subjective opinion that I can understand, but not necessarily agree with, given my experiences with the machine. You haven't 'brought everyone down to earth'. You have merely presented your view of the Amiga. It is not everyone's view. -larry "So what the hell are we going to do with a Sun?" - Darlene Phillips. - +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca or uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+