Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!udccvax1!brahms.udel.edu!don
From: don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: it would be nice
Message-ID: <13857@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: 20 Sep 90 00:32:21 GMT
References: <101.26ef7641@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au> <2285@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> <6419@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 46

In article <6419@castle.ed.ac.uk> aimd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Davidson) writes:
>In article <2285@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> scoile@gmuvax2.UUCP (Steve Coile) writes:
>>Okay, the Amiga is a better computer.  Happy?  It's not like most of us
>>are going to run out and get a new computer.  I personally have NO extra
>>money, even if I WANTED to get an Amiga.  I personally don't like the
>>Amiga's set-up, nor Commodore itself.  I like my ST because I like
>>Atari.  I have always like Atari, and I will stand by it because of it.
>
>Yuk, just because it's got a copper and super-flickery modes doesn't
>mean its better.
>
	It's also got a blitter which actually gets used; the "super-flickery"
modes do mean it's better... for those who need to work with video.  The 3000
has a de-interlacer, the new Enhanced Chip Set for all Amigas will provide
hi-res non-interlaced modes.  Amigas don't have to be rebooted to switch 
resolutions, either...

>In order to have a decent Amiga system you need loads of memory ( to run
>more than one program at a time), need more than one disk drive or a
>hard drive and a monitor to access the migrane-modes.
>
	The vast majority get by with 1 meg.  Yes, more memory is nicer, especially
when you do a lot of multitasking.  As far as needing a HD or more than one 
floppy, I wouldn't want to run ANY system in a 1-floppy configuration.

>Personally, I've never needed one of AmigaDos' biggest selling points -
>the multi-tasking, although I realise that all Amiga owners play
>Populous while they run massive ray-tracing sessions. (Well, actually
>you can't do both those things on the Amiga at one time but we'll keep
>quiet about that so that people think you can).

	Why can't it do this?  Certainly on a 68000 machine you'll see a slowdown.
But you can set one task at a lower priority to speed up the other.  Of course,
I can plug in a 68010, or an '020 or '030 board, or buy a 3000, for various
levels of speed increase.  I have yet to see an ST running on faster than a 
14MHz 68000, mostly, I assume, because TOS doesn't support the 0[1-4]0.
I can speed my system up anywhere from 5-10% for $10 (68010) to over 20 times
faster (even more for floating point) with a 50 MHz '030 board.
	I never really 'needed' multitasking either... till I got used to it.
I'm lharcing some files right now, while running this term program, a text
editor with a >500K text file loaded in, an open shell window, and a directory
utility, as well as 4 or 5 little utilities I automatically run at startup.
My 3 meg machine reports (via one of those aforementioned utilities) that
I have 1953K free.
>
>-Mark.