Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!wuarchive!udel!mmdf From: GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: MAC ][cx appraisal (long) Message-ID: <16621@snow-white.udel.EDU> Date: 12 Apr 90 08:35:46 GMT Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU Lines: 143 On 11 Apr 90 07:04:13 GMT you said: > >Yes, and so do I and I have used both for much longer... >You see I have both machines at home. >In use the Mac is faster, smoother, more consistent. Perhaps if Amiga If you are talking graphics, I do not understand. I'll give you being more consistent, but graphics wise, the Amiga (comparing identical processors) is faster and, in my opinion, smoother. I'd rather if you were more specific what you mean by that. >Developers had stuck to a set of guidlines (are there a set of >guidelines), nd used the intuition libs, the Amiga's Multitasking might >have been usefull... currently it is not. > Usefull is a relative term, but I find going from my multitasking amiga to any other system a pain. I miss it. In fact, I don't think I could ever use any system to any serious degree that didn't multitask as well as the Amiga does. There are guidelines, and they are adhered to fairly well. >For example on a mac i have a graphics package and a word proccesor open >under multifinder... each of these programs are running in "Windows" on >my desktop. I can move windows around resize them move information by >way of cut and paste between each program... the interface is more than >"pretty" or "professional" it is functional and effecient !! I define functional and effecient as operating at a reasonable speed. The Mac, I believe, doesn't do this under a Mac II. >Same scenario, enter the Amiga, horrible interface.. disimilair between >any two given pieces of software.. instead of a window, I have to pull >down this stupid screen, just so that I can see the program underneath. >I have about a 50/50 chance of being able to move information between I perfer using multiple screens rather than windows. It organizes the program better. I have found that the user interface does vary between applications, but I've never experienced a problem. If a resize gadget is differently shaped, it still is in the same place, and operates identically. I suspect that you are using a bad word processor. If you hate a specific application, please tell us which one it is. I despise Scribble, but that's old. ProWrite, I love. I'll agree that not enough applications support the clipboard. >them ARGHHHHHH ! Also multi-tasking goes hand in hand with "multiuser" No, it doesn't. The Amiga will probably never be a multi-user computer, and I don't see why any desk top computer needs to be. >Something neither the Mac not the Amiga can do. But in a single user >multitasking enviroment, the multitasking aspect provides productivity. >There is no such thing as Amiga and productivity, it's interface and >slow operating speed (except fot animation of course) see to that. >Fortunately I only use my amiga for games (That is all it is good for) >and use the MAc for when i want to do serious work !! Again, what are you comparing the Amiga to? Productivity on the Amiga is only limited by the software available. And that is not a major concern anymore. The thing limiting the productivity of the Mac II is it's lack of multitasking. The Mac SE by that and it's speed. >> >> BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> [heavily paraphrased] >> >>>MAC multitasking isn't as bad as Amiga users make it out to be >>>Amiga's graphics are kludgy, Mac's are professional >>>Mac has better font support >>>built-in networking on the Mac makes it the school choice >>>more software available for Mac >> >I totally agree > I do not. I cannot comment on the current state of Multifinder. I saw it a year ago and it seemed to slow down the machine dramatically, and eat memory. I'm sure it's much better now. As far as kludgy, I haven't a clue what you are refering to. With a little addition to the system, you can have 660 X 440 at 16 color workbench. Better font support? Again, I'm not sure what that means. I'm not a big fan of Macintosh networking. AppleTalk does come in handy when sharing a laser printer in an office situation. In our Mac labs, the network is very inadequate. Each Mac must boot off a floppy, and the file searver must be write-enabled. Our labs have spent many hours down because of virus'. > > >> misconceptions by someone who hasn't used both machines for a couple of >years. >> In an effort to avoid the former, I'll assume the latter. >> >> I've used Macs for about 4 years now, mainly for word processing (I'm a >> tech writer). I bought an Amiga 500 about 2 years ago, even though I use >> a Mac every day and like it. >> >> >> A Multitasking Comparison >> >> I use a IIcx at work with 5 Meg RAM & a fast 40Meg Sony hard drive. >> Keeping in mind that the IIcx has a 68030 running at (16? 17?) Mhz, >> it multitasks about as smoothly as my Amiga 500 with a stock 68000 >> (7.16 Mhz). A plain Mac II, using a 68020, doesn't multitask as >> well as my 500. > > Hahaha Don't make me vomit Apparently you disagree. The ability of the Mac to multitask is the ability of Multifinder to multitask. Multitasking on the Mac will always be poorer than the Amiga because the Amiga's OS was designed to multitask. The applications written for the Amiga were written with multitasking in mind. The Mac wasn't. If you feel multifinder servs you multitasking all you require, then that's a personal opinion, and I can't argue you there. Obviously, the Mac II will run faster than a stock Amiga. That, however, is not a fair comparison. >> MultiFinder starts showing its limitations while printing. Every >> Mac/MultiFinder system I've used while printing in the background >> turns the mouse pointer into a "guess where it's going to end up" >> video game -- the pointer jerks all over the screen. I don't have >> that problem with my Amiga. > > The first truth you have uttered ! No, the Amiga's pointer >doesn't jerk all over the screen... it stops and the whole machine hangs >until the printing is finished ( and that is all tasks buddy boy !) > You got yourself a nasty application. I have yet to see a single application stop the machine while it prints. What *ARE* you using? > >Ralph Schwarten >Bond University >Gold Coast >Australia F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet I am an expert on all subjects, and as long as you don't ask me any questions, you will remain convinced.