Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!pacbell.com!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Real System Comparisons Message-ID: Date: 27 Jul 90 19:58:25 GMT References: <13466@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Distribution: usa Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 76 In-Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com's message of 27 Jul 90 02:03:14 GMT In article <13466@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: While I'm flame-baiting here, I figured I would start another war by asking, for real, for an answer to the long established belief that seem pretty prevalent these days that you can get a IBM clone, roughly equivalent to the A3000, for less money. PC Equivalent for A3000: - 80386DX @ 25MHz - 80387DX @ 25MHz - 2 Megs basic, 16 Megs total 32 bit memory - On board 32 bit DMA-driven hard disk controller - 31kHz Video (plain VGA will do) - EISA bus with at least four slots - Slot for low cost 80486 add-in - Unoccupied serial and parallel ports - Microsoft or similar mouse - Microsoft Windows 3.0 Dave, you forgot one critical feature that both should have: Unix available today. Hmm, I think the Amiga just lost out, didn't it? The point is that very few people buy machines for bragging rights (though a lot get used that way :-), but buy them for some specific purpose. The machines can't be equivalent for all purposes, so the best you can do is equivalent for some purposes; I recommend the buyers. For example, given the memory & onboard HD, I don't want or need that many slots. I could probably get by with one, and ISA would do fine. I may never even use that. The cost just fell. Likewise, I don't do much (if any) math-intensive stuff. I was willing to buy an A2000 accelerater sans 6888x, why shouldn't I give the same break to the IBM clone? The price falls again. Also, trying to build into the high end is takes away some of the IBM clone's edge. Let's look at the low end. Calling the local Amiga dealer that I've found to have lowest prices on things as a general rule, I get a quote on a stock 2000 of $1439. Calling a local IBM clone dealer recommended by a friend, for $1500 I get a 386-20/0 with a 1.4Meg floppy, VGA, 1Meg of ram and 40Meg of hard disk. I was attempting to buy as much hardware as I could get for the price. I didn't ask about x87 chips, and forgot that I needed to leave room for windows 3.0. List on windows is $200 or $300; I can save $250 on that IBM clone system by going to a 286-12/0, and still have enough cash left over to upgrade to a 100 meg disk. While neither is your "equivalent" system, for my purposes either one is closer to a 3000 than a 2000. The 286 system needs more memory, but even adding that leaves it cheaper than my 2000, and competitive with it. I expect you're right - if you throw in all the hardware you specified, and add that it must come from a manufacturer at least as stable as CBM, the IBM clone will probably cost nearly as much as the 3000. However, there probably aren't many people who need or want everything the 3000 has to offer (which is lots), and many people are willing to buy something that may be an orphan or need repair a little more often, neither of which is as catastrophic with an IBM clone as with an Amiga. With the Amiga, you get two choices at that price or performance level (2500 or 3000). With the IBM clone, you get many choices, which allows the buyer to shave the corners they don't care about. The net result is that many people can buy a system that is as good as the 3000 for their purposes, while spending a lot fewer bucks.