Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc! From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Game vs Multitasking Message-ID: <1661@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> Date: 29 May 90 22:25:12 GMT Lines: 31 Return-Path: To: van-bc!rnews In , csuwk@cu.warwick.ac.uk (Ade Lovett) writes: > >I'm just getting a little p*ssed off about the arrogance of some people. >Sure, you may have a super-fast Amy, but you're the exception not the >rule, and if you don't cater for the rule, you're not going to get any >sponds out of your game. Since these machines cost loadsa money, why >don't you just blow away another $500 on an A500 to run games? (In fact, >that's the way I work - development machine being an A2000 with lots of >RAM and an HD and a 68020, and an A500 for testing and playing games). Arrogance has nothing to do with it. I bought a machine that multitasks. I will not run programs that do not multitask, be they games or productivity software. My choice, and my choice alone. Write a game that does not multitask, and I won't be playing it. Simple. Buying an A500 to run games changes nothing. The A500 is an Amiga. It also multitasks, when you dont run a program that disables it with malice aforethought. Allowing multitasking need not slow the machine down appreciably, if the user is not running something at equal priority. Leave the choices to the user if you want the widest audience. Dictate to the user if you don't care about the people that feel differently about it. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+