Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!greg
From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Some MAC and Amiga Comparisons.
Message-ID: <38313@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 16 Oct 90 16:45:07 GMT
References: <33538@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 56

I wanted to point out something in Marc's article...

WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:

>    The new MAC LC (actually, it should be called the MAC IILC, because
>the only difference between this system and the original MAC II is
>the lack of a FPU) gives you a 68020 running at 20Mhz, 2M of RAM, a 40MB
     ^^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^
I just discovered the origin of "LC."  It means "Lacks Chip." :-)

>hard drive, color video, and keyboard for $2500 list.  I will build
>a similar Amiga system using an Amiga 500 as the base.  Add $300 for
>the monitor, which is included in the Amiga system I will compare it
>against.  To be fair, I will use list prices.

Marc, you've once again goofed.  You always assume that an Apple "system"
price and an Amiga "system" price are comparable because they include
everything you'd need.  You can have your Mac LC; I don't want it.  Know
why?  You didn't add a monitor (quite expensive -- Apple specific) into
the price.  You're going to have a hard time using that system.

You say that the 3000 and the Mac IIsi are comparable.  This is utter crap.
First of all, you've got a difference of 5Mhz in speed.  I guarantee that
you'll notice the lag.  Secondly, you've got ONE processor in the Mac 
trying to run the cutesy OS and not doing a nice job of it (I've even
sat down at a IIci, which is faster, and gotten impatient with the OS.
The thing's SLOW!).  In addition, you have a single-tasking OS equipped
with a kluged task-swapper.  In order to get real multitasking out of a 
Mac, you'd have to rewrite the entire OS and all of the software.  Too
many Mac programs use busy-waits to accept things like mouse button presses
and keyboard input.  This is the BANE of multitasking.  The Amiga OS has
been designed to take care of these things for you...

RE:  Amiga's "inferior" graphics.  You've _got_ to be kidding me.  Have you
used a 24-bit board on a Mac?  If you though that things were slow before...
If you want "superior" graphics at the cost of _that_ kind of speed loss, 
you can have them.  Me, I'll take a Toaster or a ULowell board, thank you.  
You see, THEY don't eat up so much CPU.  The Firecracker 24 even runs UNDER 
the Amiga, so you don't use time on the CPU unless you actually need 24 bits.

Also, RE: your comment that Commodore is allowing Amiga to stagnate, what
the _hell_ do you mean?  Apple's new machines (the Classic, the LC and the
SI) are nothing new or revolutionary.  There's nothing special.  No new
developments in hardware...  They're just more Macs.

If you're gonna compare an Apple to an Amiga, you'd better find a comparable
Apple first...

>                                   -MB-

Greg

---------------Greg-Harp---------------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu----------------
AMIGA! //  
      // Don't you just hate those long signature files?  I mean, there oughta
    \X/  be a law.  If I were in control, .sigs would get cut off if they were