Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!alchemy!judge
From: judge@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us (rory toma)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga basher
Message-ID: <P1cJ43w162w@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us>
Date: 14 Jun 91 14:34:48 GMT
References: <1991Jun14.033035.21572@daimi.aau.dk>
Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y.
Lines: 23

pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes:

> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes:
> 
> >Do you know why "they" spend 3/4s of the CPU for graphics and I/O and the 
> >Amiga's don't? Remove the graphics/sound/bus/... coprocessors from the Amiga
> 
> Why would anyone want to do that? 
> 
> >and let's see how it's going to behave this time. Or add the appropriate
> >coprocessors to the other ones (system) and compare.
> 
> Yes, this would be a good idea.
> 
Darn, some of you guys are thick! Why stop there? Let's compare theAmiga 
to a '586 I've got, complete with a 68040 card, as well as several 
graphics cards - gee look, it's faster thanthe Amiga. We Amigoids get 
flamed when we compare a 68040 Amiga to something, but you think that 
it's unfair to compare an Amiga to a Mac or a PC because the Amiga has 
coprocessors, and they don't. Hint:C= hired somebody to design that, i.e. 
to make the Amiga different. Get real.

rory