Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!bard
From: bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Macs are great...but [Amigas are better?]
Message-ID: <1991Feb17.055456.11314@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Feb 91 05:54:56 GMT
References: <7605@crash.cts.com>
Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
Organization: Academic Information Resources, Stanford University
Lines: 28

In article <7605@crash.cts.com> djm@pro-odyssey.cts.com (David McDowell) writes:
>In-Reply-To: message from andyb@tardis.wimsey.bc.ca
>
>Amigas I have some knowledge about since I'm around an Amiga 2000HD everyday.
>The Amiga is not a bad machine (I can hear the complaints now :)) but what it
>is, is mismanaged for lack of a better word. The Amiga line could have been
>the better computer than a Macintosh but the fact is Commodore didn't put much
>thought into them.

Hm.  This is an opinion.

>They even went so far as to design a card to slide into the
>back of a 3000 only to realize that they designed the card TOO BIG!!

You are thinking of the Video Toaster by NewTek, not Commodore.  NewTek
designed the card larger than the maximum specs for the video slot; ergo,
it fits in the 2000 series, but not in an A3000.  Not Commodore's problem.

[Lots of opinions deleted...]

Let's get back to the Mac now, shall we?

>Internet: djm@pro-odyssey.cts.com

Dave Hopper      |      /// The Amiga:      | The great strength of the total-
                 | __  ///                  | itarian state is that it forces
bard@jessica.    | \\\/// The Cybernetic    | those who fear it to imitate it.
   Stanford.EDU  |  \XX/ Revolution is NOW! |               --Adolph Hitler