Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!tom
From: tom@microsoft.UUCP (Tom McConnell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: A new Amiga...
Message-ID: <10302@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 90 00:58:21 GMT
References: <4144@wehi.dn.mu.oz> <1051@sdrc.UUCP>
Reply-To: tom@microsoft.UUCP (Tom McConnell)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 28

In article <1051@sdrc.UUCP> evgabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard) writes:
>In article <4144@wehi.dn.mu.oz>, BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes:
>> 
>With the Amiga's custom graphics chips the CPU is freed up to do other things
>while in the PC/Mac world the CPU is all too often bogged down processing the
>graphics operations.That is why the 68000-based Amiga 1000 can still outperform
>a '486 VGA box on similiar graphics operations. I'm sure there are graphics
>co-processor boards that take alot of this burden off the Intel/Mac but compare
>the $$$$ to an Amiga.

Ummm...Actually, how many '486 boxes have you seen?  I've played around with 
flight sim on a '486, and it _way_ outperforms the Amiga's ability to display
fast complex graphics.  I mean we are talking about a '486 here!  These things
are _incredibly_ fast!  Even a '386 running at 20MZ is faster than an amiga
when running flight sim.  But a '386 at 16mz, well, that's getting more in the
ballpark.  Remove the floating point chip, and it's closer even more!

I am a diehard Amiga fan, but let's not get carried away!

I would like to see an amiga with a 32bit 68030 running at the same speed with 
32bit video chips.  Now _that_ would really be flying! :-)

-Tom
-- 
"Hey COW!"  _____________((      "My employer couldn't care less about BOVINES!"
           /       **    o \    ______     _______________________
          /|      ****      \ _/moo...\    |     Tom McConnell   |
         / |      **    /\__/  \______/    | uunet!microsoft!tom |