Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Amiga is better then what??? Message-ID: Date: 27 Jun 91 17:43:01 GMT References: <677913506.0@therip.FidoNet> <1991Jun26.225604.6514@lunatix.uucp> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 41 In-Reply-To: jmay@lunatix.uucp's message of Wed, 26 Jun 1991 22:56:04 GMT In article <677913506.0@therip.FidoNet> Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) writes: >However there is a 24bit card available for $800 with a coprocessor of >some sort for really good graphics... >(Multi tasking doesnt make a better machine but since most people dont realize >they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might lewt it make some >sort of an effect on them..) Grin :-). 24 bit color doesn't make a better machine but since most people don't realize they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might let it make some sort of effect on them. Four colors is fine for everything I do; just let me choose them from a sufficiently large pallete, and I'm happy. Oddly enough, 4096 colors is a sufficiently large pallete. (now, 700x500 isn't enough bits, but multiple virtual screens go a long way towards solving that). On the other hand, take away my ability to pop open new CLI to terminate a CPU runaway, and I'll be upset. Maybe it's because I started by playing with multitasking systems instead of monotasking systems, but not having worry about whether I can start application X while application Y is running for all applications X and Y seems like an important feature to me. If you don't do what I do (not unlikely), and actually need 24 bit color, and don't want multitasking - that's fine. Choose the computer that's best for you. Don't tell me I didn't choose the best computer because I chose one that meets my needs better than what you chose, though.