Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!uh2
From: UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga 2000 v. 386 VGA
Message-ID: <90271.191138UH2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 90 23:11:38 GMT
References: <31eOC@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <60335@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
 <462@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> <90270.192334JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 20

In article <90270.192334JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu>, JKT <JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
>I own both an Amiga 2000/HD which is accelerated in no way.  I also own
>a 386 clone with VGA and HD.  Both have 3 megs of memory.  Both have
>2 floppies in addition to their HD's.  The 386's clock speed is 16 MHz
>as opposed to the Amiga's 7 MHz.
>
>The Amiga unquestionably outperforms the 386.  All tasks I run on both
>are noticably slower on the 386.  More importantly, they are more
>*difficult* on the 386.  Windows 3.0 is still kludgy, I don't care
>what anyone says.
>

This is very nice to hear, since today I played with a 386 VGA Windows3.0
rig and it sure seemed to feel good.

Could you do us all a favor and elaborate a little on the types of things
you do that you find better on the Amiga than on the 386?  What is
kludgey about Windows?  Give us some specific bullets we can use when arguing
over beer about computers....