Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.misc:1317 comp.sys.mac.misc:9077 comp.sys.mac.games:3196 comp.sys.amiga.games:4768
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.games,comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: Mac and Amiga (Games--Macintosh vs A500)
Message-ID: <712Gr7w?@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 91 05:15:08 GMT
References: <27253@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1991Mar3.223546.12173@rice.edu>
	<1991Mar4.022332.8904@csn.org>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 26
In-Reply-To: ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU's message of 4 Mar 91 02:23:32 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu


In article <1991Mar4.022332.8904@csn.org> ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Ullevig Zachary A) writes:

   Think about the target market for each machine.  The Amiga computers are not
   designed to be great computers, but they are designed to take a big chunck out
   of the game market.  They don't have much power, but they are given great
   graphics and sound to make for good game machines.  Macs are too expensive to
   buy simply as a game computer, so less games are made for the macs and most
   mac users don't care that there are no graphics co-processors.

Having dedicated hardware to handle graphics, sound, DMA, etc. is a
great idea.  That's why Apple and several third party companies sell
graphic accelerators for the Mac.  Apple even put a 6502 in the Mac
IIfx so that it can have DMA.  Of course you need Unix to actually use
it.  You would think that the Amiga would be more expensive than the
Mac since it has all that extra hardware.

Try thinking of other things you can do with great graphics besides
games.  Multimedia ring a bell?  Hypercard 2.0 might include direct
color support if the Mac had graphics hardware.  MacroMind Director...


-Mike

BTW: I'm not an Amiga weenie, I'm a NeXT weenie.  But you do have to
give credit where it is due.