Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amigas in the big picture.
Message-ID: <7423@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jul 89 19:24:09 GMT
References: <38517@sgi.SGI.COM>
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 74

in article <38517@sgi.SGI.COM>, mplevine@sgi.com (Marshall P. Levine) says:
> Keywords: reliability quality speed graphics sound compare

> The three BIG microcomputer families available were: IBM PC family
> and compatibles, Apple ][ family and compatibles, and the Apple Mac family.

And the most popular computer family, in terms of units shipped, was still
the C64/C128 family (IBM and compatibles have since outdistanced them 
considerably in terms of units sold, but they didn't do it overnight).

> 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.

The fastest IBM clones shipping are 33MHz machines (last I heard IBM's fastest
was still 25MHz, though maybe they have a 33MHz like everyone else by now).
The fastest Macs shipping are 15.8MHz machines.  The fastest Amigas shipping 
are 14.3MHz machines.  Both Macs and Amigas can currently be boosted to 33MHz
with 3rd party add-in cards.  Most of the existing IBM clones run at 4.77MHz,
though I suspect 8MHz machines may soon overtake those older ones.  Most of
the existing Macs are the 7.8MHz machines, and as you mentioned, most of the
Amigas currently in existence are 7.16MHz machines.  The reasons are all the
same -- not everyone needs a faster machine, and of those who believe they do,
not everyone can afford one.

So much for CPU technology.  It's interesting to note that Amiga hard disks
under FFS are considerably faster than those on any Mac, and only approached 
by the best IBM machine technology (though most of those machines, such as
the ALR line, resort to custom hardware disk caching to achieve something
close to the 850k/sec a decked out Amiga can achieve).

> 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.  

You're obviously a bit confused about "speed".  It's not something you can
measure strictly based on CPU clock rate.  The Amiga architecture at 7.16MHz
is significantly faster than the Mac 7.8MHz architectures.  The reason for
this is simple; the Amiga's custom chips offload a significant bit of work from
the CPU.  Add a DMA driven hard disk, and you get the same kind of speedup 
there.  The original Macs went as far as to actually have to actually read 
the mouse quad clocks directly with the CPU.  The SE and Mac II design does
a bit better, but they're still bogging down the CPU enough to let an A2500
perform many operations faster than a Mac II.  Even running the Mac OS via
ReadySoft's A-Max, they tell me.

> For a long time, it was impossible to talk with any real Amiga technicians 
> or engineers.  

Simply untrue.  Amiga engineers have been available on public networks since
there's been an Amiga.  I don't think you can find such access to the same
level of people working on any other computer line.

> But that does not make it the best computer on the market.

I don't think you could pick ANY computer you've mentioned and call it the
best computer on the market.  No single computer is going to fulfill the
needs of all computer users equally well.  I currently use my Amiga for
everything except work-related schematic capture, circuit simulation, and PAL
compiling.  I have no complaints about word or document processing, etc.;
for my needs they're perfectly adequate.  Other folks won't be happy without
DOC on an Apollo.  I do PALs on a PC because the software isn't available
for the Amiga.  I could do schematic capture on an Amiga or a PC, but none
of the packages I've tried even come close to NetEd on the Apollo, even
though my office Amiga has more memory and runs faster than our Apollos.
Simulations go faster on faster machines; that's what the VAX 8600 is for,
though my Amiga could come close if there are several simulations going.

Oops, the VAX is going down, gotta run...

> -- Marshall Levine
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: D-DAVE H     BIX: hazy
           Be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it