Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!sbcs!csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu!dtiberio
From: dtiberio@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga 3000 vs. NeXT
Message-ID: <1991Feb14.232139.880@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 91 23:21:39 GMT
References: <1991Feb13.013145.10954@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1991Feb13.040618.5160@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 27

In article <1991Feb13.040618.5160@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:
>craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley) writes:
>>Clearly the A3000 is superior to the NeXT.
>>After all, the former can emulate a Mac.
>>
>>P.S. :) 
>
>Personally, I've always been confused about this particular "gloat"...
>
>Doesn't the fact that several kinds of machines are proud to emulate the Mac,
>simply demonstrate that the Mac OS is more portable, and is also desirable?
>
>In addition, couldn't a Mac user claim: "I can move from a Mac to an
>Amiga or ST or RISC without losing my programs, yet owners of those
>computers cannot move to a Mac and do the same."  ??
>
>P.S. :) :)  Different viewpoint, eh?  :-)   kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu

  I always thought that it was because the Amiga chip set would be harder
to emulate safely on any 68000 based machine. I am sure it could be done,
but it would run the software pretty slowly.

  Second, why would a person who has an Amiga with a mac emulator want
to move to a Mac? 

P.S. :) Sometimes you have to just admit that you don't have to spend
        $800 for a word processor... :)