Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!bagate!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!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: Mac and Amiga (Games--Macintosh vs A500) Message-ID: <1991Mar13.125438.9510@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 13 Mar 91 12:54:38 GMT References: <1991Mar10.182432.9314@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 21 In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: > Yes, it needs to add a graphics coprocessor, but considering a > 16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running > Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing > technology tricks. Gimme a break. My Amiga 1000 is peppier than your Mac-II class machine, and I *know* the 68030 at 16 MHz can outperform a 7.14 MHz blitter. The 68020 can, for that matter (a tight bitblt loop on the 68020 can keep the data bus 100% busy: you can't go any faster than that). Windows is tied down by mid-'70s technology: MS-DOS, an 8088 based clone of CP/M. It's tied down by the 8086 segmented memory model, even on an 80386. Windows is a dancing bear... it is not expected to dance well: it is remarkable that it dances at all. Apple's amazing technology tricks are simply not having quite as great a load of obsolete technology weighing them down. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .