Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekig5!wayneck From: wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: How about Sliced EHB ?? Message-ID: <5154@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> Date: 7 Dec 89 19:02:19 GMT References: <568@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1247@corpane.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Lines: 67 In article <1247@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff > Bevis) writes: > >>Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >>dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >>just to bring up the image? .... > >I think I know what you mean. You're not complaining about the new modes, but >about all the software hassle we have to go through to *get* these new modes, >right? I agree. It seems to me that this is a sign that the Amiga is lagging a >bit in it's graphics technology. When the Amiga came out in '84 it's graphics >was astounding, but geez that was almost 6 years ago. Now most everyone else is >catching up and surpassing us. IBM has new extended VGA cards that do 640 x 480 >with 256 colors (not interlaced either) and the Mac has the same resolution >with what? 16 million colors? > >Sure they cost more ... I don't that is the case anymore. I'm in the process of porting some animation software from the Amiga to IBM PC. I ordered a nice system from Tri-Star computers and added some from local stores and a couple used pieces. Now I have a system that my Amiga 1000 can not even begin to stand up too. I have about $3000 in 1985 dollars in my Amiga and about $4000 in 1989 dollars in the pc clone. The only place that the Amiga is ahead is in the amount of memory in it, 2.5 Megs as compared to 2 Megs+ (Including graphics cards memories) in the pc clone, however the clone has a very large (100Meg+) and FAST hard disk so I use it for a virtual memory device and don't miss the memory. After all 2.5 Megs isn't very much when it comes to Animation anyway, it is much better to have a spare 30 Megs on a very fast hard disk. Now I'm not trying to take a poke at the Amiga. After all what I'm doing with the pc clone today would not have been possible in 1985. The Amiga was way ahead at that time, but today isn't no longer a leader no matter how much money is dumped into it. The computer market place waits for no one. So I concure that a Amiga 3000 is needed today and it must be 32 bits, and have GREATLY improved graphics. Just look at what I was able to put together for less than $4000. 25 MHz 386 mini tower (8 expansion slots) 100 MByte IDE hard disk, 32k disk cache 1.2 Mbyte & 1.44 Mbyte floppies (5.5" and 3.25") VGA wonder 512k (can do 1024 x 768 x 256) Professional Image Borad (NTSC out 512x512x32000) Sony CDP-1303 multisync Turdo C Professional (15000 lines compiles/links in 1 minute!!!) 5000+ drystones 100K+ wetshones As you can see it is a lot of stuff and it is very fast. Multitasking is availiable with DeqView 386, Windows 386 and OS/2, plus you can use Unix if you want. Everything is easy to buy today, and it all works. The graphics speed is at least a good or better than my Amiga 1000, at least I can draw pattern filled polygons with it much faster than on the Amiga. All in all it is useable, fast and cheap. To top it all off if I don't mind spending money I can even get a much faster system, that will run my binaries. Now in all honesty, if I could only buy stuff from IBM I don't think the system would compare as well. The third party support is what is taking the pc clones to new heights! The problem Commodore has isn't to beat IBM or Apple but to beat them and all the third party vendors that support IBM and Apple. I think the real lead the Amiga still has is desktop video and animation. However to hold this lead better hardware is needed. Wayne Knapp