Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!amiga0!mykes From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Why are Amigaoids hell bent on proving the Amiga is better ? Message-ID: Date: 29 Jun 91 03:16:16 GMT References: <3104@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au> <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> Organization: Amiga makes it possible Lines: 67 In article <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium >reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high >score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that >you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you >choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. > The only time I ever lost data on my Amiga in the last 6 years was in the VERY early days when floppies were all there was. If you eject a floppy when the disk light is on, you are guaranteed to corrupt your diskette... And the disk light doesn't necessarily go out when a program returns to the DOS prompt, so it took a little training to make sure the disk light goes out before ejecting a floppy. With hard disk, I have NOT lost data, except through my own stupidness (like using the delete command). The only "bad" reputation the Amiga gets is from people who just don't know anything about it. > In a game machine, speed counts, price counts, but reliability >can suffer, and it usually does. (I once asked Dave Haynie, hardware >dude of some renown, what reliability features were present in the >Amiga, and his reply was that OFS is replete with robust features that >made tools like DiskSalv possible. I found it quite telling that this >hardware guy pointed out a software feature.) > Besides being one of the great PC designers on the planet, Dave has also contributed quite a bit of useful software to the public domain. In other words, he is a fine software person, too. > Businesses have to choose their risks carefully. In the case >of a "game" computer versus a "business" computer, the business >*should* choose the computer with the least risk involved. A game >computer is risky, so it typically loses. > You have failed to describe the REAL risk involved. If people are going to be so stupid as to assume there is risk where there is none, then Amiga owners indeed need to kick and scream to get people to wake up and smell the coffee. > On the other hand, a game computer's market is extremely >price-sensitive, and so the game computer is typically very cheap >(from the absense of reliability features, no doubt). This may win it >a few business desks when cost is a major factor. This is why Commodore makes a low-end machine like the A500, which is cheap plastic, and higher end machines like the A2000 and A3000. While the A500 is mostly capable of everything the high end machines are, you won't find many of us here in .advocacy even suggesting that businesses should go out and stock up on A500s for productivity use. On the other hand, with an A2500 or A3000, you are getting a LOT more performance for your money over other platforms - AND reliability. In fact, CBM supports the A3000 (I'm not sure about the lower models...) with ON-SITE maintenance for FREE for a year. That takes a bit of confidence in the machines' reliability. >-- >Richard Krehbiel, private citizen ckp@grebyn.com >(Who needs a fancy .signature?) -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************