Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!udel!burdvax!gvlv2!faatcrl!jimb From: jimb@faatcrl.UUCP (Jim Burwell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: AMIGA Fading? Message-ID: <1087@faatcrl.UUCP> Date: 15 Nov 89 22:42:53 GMT References: <4105@nigel.udel.EDU> Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ Lines: 92 WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) writes: > The following article is from the October 1989 issue of TIME >(P. 72): > "The twin fetes had all the glitz and hoopla of a Hollywood >premiere. Champagne flowed freely, and soft jazz whispered in >the background. Guests nibbled on caviar and smoked-salmon >quiche. The big bashes, which took place on the same day this >month in New York City and Los Angeles, were staged by Commodore >Business Machines to kick off a $15 million advertizing compaign, >]tarring celebrities ranging from the Pointer Sisters to Tommy >Lasorda, manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers. But instead of >coming off as a preview, the even seemed more like a benefit for >an aging star. > > "In this case, the focus of attention was the Amiga, a personal >computer introduced by Commodore four years ago, whose sagging >sales and fading image the company is trying to repair." When I read this article in Time (the same issue with 7 page Amiga ads in it), I was really annoyed. The basic mood of the beginning of the article is how computer companies are pushing stagnant technology on poor consumers. Of course, as seen above, the Amiga was highlighted. The article gave the impression that the Amiga was the "prime offender" for pushing stagnant technology! Sometimes I think IBM or Apple pays reporters to put bad press out on their competition! Anyway, I find it funny that the author didn't realize that the Amiga is the YOUNGEST computer when compared to computers offered by Apple and IBM. How old is the Mac ? 6-8 years or so (I don't remember). How old is the IBM PC ? 10 years ?? The Amiga.. ohh boy! 4 years! And if you compare them, the Amiga is still the most innovative computer of the bunch. Of course, PCs and Macs have changed over the years. PCs changed mostly hardware wise, with faster CPUs, better graphics, and more memory. But until recently, they still couldn't multi-task or run a GUI without running MS-DOG kludge programs which didn't run with half of the available software. MS-DOG users were delighted with TSRs, MS-Windows (ugh), and Desqview while we were running an elegant multitasking operating system with a GUI from day one. Now MS-DOS users can run OS/2, but you need a very fast and expensive machine, with a huge hard disk to run it. Apple impoved its hardware over the years also, and attempted to improve its OS. They added faster CPUs, better (color) graphics, more memory, and opened their architechture with the nubus so you could add cards. But they are still running basically the same OS. They made an attempt at multi-tasking with multifinder, but that has the same sort of problems that Desqview on the IBM has. The only real way to get a multi-tasking OS with a GUI in the Mac world is to take a second mortgage on your house, go out and buy a Mac II with a large hard drive, and run Unix with X-windows... And comparing end prices, I'd sooner go out get buy a Sun Sparcstation 1. So now who's the "prime offender" ? CBM has also added faster CPUs, improved graphics (even though they had superior graphics to start with), added memory, and opened their architechture with the Zorro II bus on the A2000. We're STILL running an elegant multi-tasking OS with a great GUI, and we'll soon have Unix. And we can also be MS-Dos, and Mac compatible (the only other machines I've seen that can run MS-Dos in a window are expen$ive Sun workstations).. And lets not forget all those nifty things we take for granted, like fantastic sound and animation capabilities, fast graphics co-processor, and the user friendly device independence and flexibility of AmigaDOS. Who's image is fading now ? The author of that article was either payed, or is just another MS-DOS or Mac weenie who doesn't know anything about Amigas, and probably knows next to nothing about computers in general. Grrr.. The only things that Apple and IBM (and clones) have on us is a larger software base, that only comes with age :-). CBM could move a little faster now and then, but I think they're going in the right direction now. One problem I do see is a possible reluctance to go in and improve/optimize the custom hardware that makes the Amiga what it is. Of course, now that we have slots in the A2000, we could take the Mac/IBM route, and simply chuck the cards that are obsolete, replacing them with newer ones, at a cost, of course. Just some thoughts... I'll be quiet now :-). Bye Jim -- +------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+ | James S. Burwell | | | | "UseNet...A text network | | UUCP: | in a binary world" - Me | | ...!{ames!netsys|rutgers}!faatcrl | | | !jimb | "How do you say | | . | 'multitasking' in | | Internet: . | MS-DOSish? Network | | // jimb@faatcrl.UUCP . ** | File Server!" - Me | | // . **** | | | \\ // GEnie: Airwarior: . .** | | | \X/ JIMBURWELL Techrat . | | +------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+