Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!murdu!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!u3364521
From: U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga Competitiveness.
Message-ID: <1080@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 26 Sep 90 03:12:48 GMT
References: <31531@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <3134@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Organization: I.A.E.S.R., Melbourne University
Lines: 32

G'day,

DC> In article <3134@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu
DC> (Dan Cogswell) writes: 

MB> In article <31531@nigel.ee.udel.edu> WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett)
MB> writes: 

MB>   BTW, making the A2000 68020-based would make for a nice orderly
MB> progression up the Amiga product line. The A500 would be 68000-based,
MB> the A2000 would be 68020-based, and the A3000 would be 68030-based.
 
DC> I hate to say this, but I agree with him.  I thought the 2000 was the 
DC> best thing since sliced bread when I got it, but it's a bit dissapointing
DC> thinking the thing is no faster than my old 500, at three times the price!
 
MB>                                 -MB-
 
I haven't read the original posting by Marc but I also support this suggestion.

Perhaps an Amiga 2000 Professional (a la A2500/20 with 1 Meg 16 bit RAM and 1M
32 bit RAM) would be percieved by business to be a Mac II level of machine? {I
am suggesting an entry level system here, with AmigaDos 2.0, somewhat like the
Amiga 3000 RAM spec, in numerical terms.}

Please, I'm simply speculating what a business user would perceive.  I have my
own opinions about both systems that I will keep to myself.

DC> Dan Cogswell                          <great quote deleted, sorry!>

yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.