Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.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: 6 Aug 90 20:56:08 GMT References: <13466@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Distribution: usa Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 84 In-Reply-To: eachus@linus.mitre.org's message of 30 Jul 90 19:10:24 GMT In article eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: [ list deleted ] The point is often made that software for the Amiga is less expensive than for Mac or IBM. I think you've got that backwards. Then again, it could depend on what you're pricing. I've noticed that C compilers are much cheaper on the IBM PC. But I haven't used them, so that to get the same quality you may need to spend the same or more money. But a more important difference in cost is that to get a minimally functional IBM system can cost over $1000 for software that the Amiga has out of the box. Then again, you can get a lot of that software for free; in fact, you can get a lot more than you can on an Amiga. And even then the equivalent of some of the standard Amiga software is not available at any price for the IBM. The only reason the reverse isn't true is because the Amiga can have an IBM PC plugged into it. While paging through MicroTimes this week, I watched the types of systems you got for > $3000. Most of them are 486 or 33MHz 386 systems, though there are a few 25MHz 386 systems for that price. However, Dave's system probably doesn't exist, for two reasons: 1) The standard disk interface for high-end IBM PCs is ESDI, not SCSI. While I'm willing to accept those as substitutes for each other, there are still some people who think that SCSI doesn't belong in a "real computer." 2) EISA slots - systems with more than a couple of EISA slots tend to be '486 based, not '386 based. Allowing for those two changes, then Dave's "equivalent" systems start showing up around $3300 or so. Methinks calling the A3000 and said "equivalent" IBM clone "the same price for the same quality" is about right. Except that the "equivalent" Amiga to that clone would be: 25MHz 68040 6 Zorro III slots space & power supply sufficient for 5 drives. socket for Wietek 4167 or equivalent 32K of 25ns cache, expandable to 512K. HD floppy 2 serial ports, 1 parallel port, 1 game port. And the 3000 just doesn't stack up. The point of all this is that (as I said before) price comparisons of arbitrarily defined "equivalent" hardware is pretty meaningless. You have to look at what you want to use the system _for_. If your application only runs on one of the two boxes, then there isn't an "equivalent" other box. This is only slightly less true if the application is "unreleased" on one of the boxes and released on the other. If your purpose needs a set of IO interfaces that one system comes with and the other doesn't - well, one is going to have an advantage over the other. If your purpose calls for raw CPU or FPU power, and little else (i.e. - all you do is spreadsheet recalcs), then the IBM boxes provide more bang - either for the buck, or total (I think - anyone want to comment on that Wietek chip?). If you need animations and NTSC-compatable images, then the Amiga is going to provide a lot more bang for the buck, if not total. They're hard to call as C development environments. On the other hand, the IBM PC doesn't have a mature multitasking OS with the features and support the Amiga does.