Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!mintaka!oliveb!amiga!cbmvax!mitchell From: mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Mitchell - PA) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: How about Sliced EHB ?? Message-ID: <8964@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 13 Dec 89 00:57:34 GMT References: <568@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1247@corpane.UUCP> <5154@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> Reply-To: mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Mitchell - PA) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 104 In article <5154@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >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. What would an equivalent system in today's dollars cost you for the Amiga? Plus, you're ignoring all the new software/hardware that's available now. > 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. And the Amiga dosen't have even faster SCSI Hard Disks????? >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. I would think about that last statement carefully. >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 How fast is this Hard Disk? How does the controller dump data into memory? DMA? What data width? Byte, word, or longword? > 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!!!) 15000 lines compiles AND links in ONE minute? I have a hard time believing that, considering all the includes and other factors, but I'll take your word on it. >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. Come on! You're comparing a base 68000 with the horsepower of a 80386! Now, if your Amiga has a 68030, then its a fair comparison. Not likely with a 1000. >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. Huh? >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. Don't worry. :-) > Wayne Knapp Fred Mitchell (NOTE: This is NOT intended as a flame, but something to clarify a few points.) -To Life, Immortal mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP