Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!gnh-starport.cts.com!whitewolf
From: whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: A-Max II
Message-ID: <0093DC222B880640.00000110@dcs.simpact.com>
Date: 6 Oct 90 08:25:23 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 65
X-Unparsable-Date: Fri Oct  5 90 at 03:41:01 (EDT)

|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?)
|

Well, if, you insist.  No, the A3000 DOESN'T have full 32-bit slots.  Their
STILL 16-bits!!!  They have to multiplex the 16-bit bus to get 32-bits.  Amiga
co-processors are jokes when compared to the 24-bit graphic boards with 32-bit
graphic co-processors.  The Amiga DMA... OOOOHHH... too BAD they interfere with
DMA cards, like DMA SCSI controller cards and the like.  No one even sells DMA
SCSI controllers for the Amiga.  HAM-E... haha, comparing 320x200 (can't do 400
without flickering) with what 700,000 colors to a 1200x1024 any of the 16.8
colors to each pixel... go shovel it someplace else.  Transputers, oohh, you
can add various processor to the Mac IIs... and you can use many of them
transpartently thanks to NuBuses Multi-master capablity.  1.7GigaBytes, isn't
that nice... 2Gs for the Mac II, bub and lots more through virtual memeory via
the 68030.  Surprise, what do you know the MAc II uses a 68030, too.
Non-standard SCSI... well, show me SCSI HD that DOESN'T work on the Mac II. 
Macs got everybody else into it... that makes it pretty much their standard,
STANDARD!  XT/AT slots... well, I see ABSOLUTELY NO advantage in ISA 16-bit
slots to NuBuses 32-bit slots.  Do you?  Didn't think so.  So far, your
comments seem less then well thought out.  Don't bother trying to convince me,
OK.  I DON'T OWN A MAC II or an Amiga.  Although I wish I did (both or either).

Video Toaster shows some promise, but you'd better read an article in
AmigaWorld.  It's not fully fuctional until you buy a $1500 timer to turn it
into a REAL gen-lock.  I only skimed through it OK, so I guess you can more or
less ignore that.

What do you want me to say, that the Amiga is better than the Mac II.  It's my
opinion, but I don't think it is.  Somethings off the top of my head that you
can't do on an Amiga, but POSSIBLE on a Mac II.  Multiple screens... you can
have 1-6 screens and they can be different resolutions of the Desktop
(WorkBench to you). Resolution of 640x480 to 1200x1024 in black and white to
any for any pixel from 16.8 colors.  You have multi-processors.. transputers,
RISCs... DSPs... they work without having to bother with jumper and switches.
Software have no problem in different resolutions, doesn't matter if there are
multi-screens... graphics accelerators AMD29000, or MC96000, or TI32010 and
TI32020 can easily out perform the 16-bit running at what 7Mhz co-processors.
You think Amiga does a great job with 320x200 screen... you do that in a small
window of that resolution on the Mac II with ease.

Aw, heck with this!!!