Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!cs.dal.ca!ug.cs.dal.ca!graham
From: graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Macs are great...more
Message-ID: <1991Jan20.191640.28143@cs.dal.ca>
Date: 20 Jan 91 19:16:40 GMT
References: <1991Jan19.040432.21738@cs.dal.ca> <1991Jan20.014343.13242@cs.dal.ca> <12697@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: news@cs.dal.ca (USENET News)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: ug.cs.dal.ca

Thanks to everyone who responded. I know that there was a debate about 
"Surely the IIfx is better than an Amiga 3000", but I didn't get much out
of it.
I was showing a Mac IIfx to an Amiga friend of mine - after awhile I loaded
up PageMaker 4.0 - takes about 10 seconds. As it was loading he asked me why
I couldn't keep working in the other programs I had running under Multifinder
   I had no answer. There were numerous other things that he brought up - but
I can't remember...

  I should probably just USE an Amiga - DO or try to do the things I do on
my Mac and see what happens.

  Considering the IIfx is (not sure about this) 2-3 times more expensive than
an Amiga 3000, Apple should have made it more than just a faster Mac IIx.
I saw it ray tracing a simple cone (StrataVision) and couldn't believe how
INCREDIBLY slow it is. Hopefully Apple has bought the top of the line NeXT
and learned something. (Have you all seen the comparisons in MacWorld/User?)

  The IIfx is a fairly fast general usage machine. So why is it SO EXPENSIVE!
  And why doesn't it have more advanced features. Apple spends enough on R&D!

No wonder my friends think so little of Macs.

Someone please tell me that I am all wrong - and why...

mike