Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!lobster!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Why all of this NeXT talk? Keywords: A3000UX NeXT stop rediculous Message-ID: <1991Feb13.012824.22004@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 13 Feb 91 01:28:24 GMT References: <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1991Feb11.025210.24933@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Feb11.212305.27010@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 59 In article <1991Feb11.212305.27010@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: > Not an entirely new system hardware architecture. I will simply need to > apply what I already know to meet the Unix resource structure. No, programming under X is a completely new world from AmigaOS. It's a huge step back: programming X is like programming the Mac, only more complex. UNIX is supposed to make programming easier, not harder. X doesn't even support Smart Refresh windows... *all* programs have to be written as if they're Simple Refresh. > Irrelevant comparisons are repeatedly being made. Of course the 68040 will > run faster than a 68030. That's a relevant comparison. Those are the machines for sale. > Of course a monochrome, slotless system will cost > less than a color, slotted system. A monochrome, high resolution system versus a color, lower resolution system. > And the cost of adding a 68040 card > will most likely be close to the cost of the 68040 chip. I find this hard to believe. I'd like that, but I find it hard to believe. > I expect the comparisons to be a little more closely matched to even > justify reading them. Why? The machines aren't. > really hooked on monochrome, that is readily available. Use a large > monochrome monitor with one of the currently available monochrome display > boards! Have you seen how *slow* those boards update? And then add the cost of these boards and the special monitors to the Amiga's price. You're getting into diskful RISC range. > Amiga world running under the SAME hardware. The hardware is virtually > identical, so WHY NOT use AmigaOS as a selling point. I take it you've never run a small UNIX system with a second O/S available. In practice you just never run that other O/S unless you can run it under UNIX. > The Amiga line is eliminating this need for the completely NEW machine when > something else comes out that you may want to add to its capabilites. Really? You're talking to a man who bought a 3000 because Commodore abandoned the 1000. I know I can expand the 1000 to equal capabilities, but it's just not cost effective. > A better question is what CAN'T you put into an Amiga? Well, I'm still waiting for a good send/receive FAX card. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .