Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!udel!brahms.udel.edu!don
From: don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: A-Max II
Message-ID: <14183@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 90 15:07:22 GMT
References: <0093D687C82BA920.00000725@dcs.simpact.com>
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 35

In article <0093D687C82BA920.00000725@dcs.simpact.com> whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes:
>|The newest version of Amax (A-Max II) has support for Apple  talk
>|and  will  run  with the newest 50 Mhz 68030 accelerator card for
>|the Amiga 2000.  How's a 50 Mhz 68030/68882 stand  up  against  a
>|pokey old Mac IIfx?
>
>Actually, the Mac IIfx can beat out 50Mhz acceleratros for the older Mac IIs. 
>Lot of the bottlenecks removed as well, and of course Amiga doesn't have full
>32-bit slots or capable of displaying 24-bit graphics or it's expandiblity.
	The 3000 does have full 32-bt slots.  A lot of the bottlenecks were removed
from the IIfx, but unfortunately most of the improvements still aren't
supported by the OS so they don't get used.  Every amiga has DMA and multiple
coprocesors to speed things up... the IIfx is the only Mac offering things
like this, and, as I said, most of them still aren't really supported.
As for 24-bit graphics, there are a number of solutions available.  There are
frame buffers, devices like HAM-E and DCTV, and even transputers (that 
doesn't even take the Video Toaster into account :-).  In what way does the
Amiga not have a Mac's expandability?  The 3000 can go to 8MB on the
motherboard, will autoconfigure 1.7 GB, and will support even more, up to
the 4 GB the '030 can address, using a little program called addmem.
It uses standard (not Mac-style non-standard) SCSI.  The 2000 series also
has multiple XT/AT slots which can be used with IBM hardware in conjunction
with a bridgeboard.  So exactly how does it lack expandibility?


>
>I find it amusing how Amiga users always compare their machines against the Mac
>IIs.  Face it Amiga always comes in as runner up at best.
>Mac IIs maybe expensive, but at least you get what you pay for.

	I find it amusing how Mac II owners always think they've gotten what
they paid for, when they can always get an Amiga with more features for
a lower price.  (Not to mention that Mac software costs a LOT more, and
requires more memory, for the most part.  Did you know the Mac is 3rd 
(behind PC's and Amiga) in software sales volume?)