Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!brahms.udel.edu!don From: don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: A-Max II Message-ID: <14372@brahms.udel.edu> Date: 6 Oct 90 15:02:35 GMT References: <0093DC222B880640.00000110@dcs.simpact.com> Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 115 In article <0093DC222B880640.00000110@dcs.simpact.com> whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: > >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. No, they are 32 bits. There is some type of multiplexing done if you've got a 16-bit ZorroII card plugged in to make it appear to the system to be a Zorro III (32-bit) card; cards for the ZorroIII bus, though, are a full 32 bits wide. ZorroIII, I'm told, can achieve speeds of ~20MHz thoughput. >Amiga >co-processors are jokes when compared to the 24-bit graphic boards with 32-bit >graphic co-processors. Which are available only for the higher-end Macs and which require expensive monitors (in addition to the cost of the boards themselves). QuickDraw is nice for compatibility, and the Amiga needs something like it now that similar boards are appearing for it; but QuickDraw also seem to slow things down tremendously. My limited experience with Mac graphics accelerator cards (saw 2 demoed by Apple people visiting work) left me unimpressed. Sure, they drew windows fast. But they didn't seem to be too suited to real animation. (Of course, I had been playing with a $100,000+ personal Iris just a few hours before, so I might have been expecting too much :-). > >The Amiga DMA... OOOOHHH... too BAD they interfere with >DMA cards, like DMA SCSI controller cards and the like. Say WHAT? DMA channels interfering with DMA hardware... I can't really comment on that one because I have yet to figure out the logic behind it. >No one even sells DMA >SCSI controllers for the Amiga. No one? GVP, Commodore, ICD, Xetec, MAST, and Microbotics are names I can think of right off the top of my head who produce DMA SCSI controllers for the Amiga. In fact, I can only think of two companies which produce non-DMA controllers. >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. I'm comparing a 320x200 or 320x400 NTSC signal for under $300 to a $3000+ card & monitor combination which still has to have hardware added to output and NTSC signal. Both have advantages and disadvantages. >1.7GigaBytes, isn't >that nice... 2Gs for the Mac II, bub and lots more through virtual memeory via >the 68030. The 3000 will AUTOCONFIGURE 1.7 gigabytes. You can easily add more, up to the 4 GB supported by the '030. Virtual memory is right now only available for the Mac via 3rd-party add-ons, and won't be 'officially' supported until 7.0 comes out. Yes, it's a nice thing to have, and to get it on an AMiga currently, you have to run Unix. >Surprise, what do you know the MAc II uses a 68030, too. Never said it didn't. (Errr, actually, the II doesn't.. but the II's been discontinued anyway in favor of the IIci and IIfx). >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! The connectors they use are non-standard. SCSI was around before the Mac, mostly on workstations, etc. >XT/AT slots... well, I see ABSOLUTELY NO advantage in ISA 16-bit >slots to NuBuses 32-bit slots. Do you? If you're trying to use PC hardware, yes, definitely. >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). I own an Amiga 2000 (hopefully 3000 soon) and use a Mac IIci at work regularly. Both have their good and bad point, but overall, I'd keep my Amiga. > >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. > It needs a TBC (time base corrector). It also needs high-quality storage media if you want quality work. But that's no different than other systems, and even if it cost $10000 for the system, I'm told by a video guy I know that it'd still be well worth the cost. >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. > Multiple screens of different resolutions and pallettes (on the same monitor) are something the Amiga's always done. Never heard of its existence in the Mac world, except with multiple monitors. 24-bit color (in high resolutions) is available, and graphics accelerators are coming. 1280x800 greyscale has been around on the Ami for years. As for the 'jumpers and switches', that's what the Amiga's autoconfig ability replaces; I've heard of DSP, i860, TMS34010, and T800/T900 systems for Ami.