Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site minster.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!mcvax!ukc!reading!minster!nigel
From: nigel@minster.UUCP (nigel)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Demo Wars!!!! Bouncing Ball.....
Message-ID: <622@minster.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Nov-85 06:09:40 EST
Article-I.D.: minster.622
Posted: Fri Nov 29 06:09:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Dec-85 03:29:43 EST
References: <1543@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: nigel@minster.UUCP (nigel)
Organization: University of York, England
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.micro.atari:1826 net.micro.amiga:928
Xpath: reading onion.cs

In article <1543@decwrl.UUCP> boiko@cgvax2.DEC (Michael Boiko DDD/N26 264-9427) writes:
>
>	Below you will find Commodore's response to the bouncing ball demo
>on the ST, which copies the same demo, first done on an Amiga...
...
>You know, of course.....This Means War!
> 
>The famous Amiga Bouncing Ball demo was written a little under 2 years
>ago.  It was written in C code in the span of about 1 week.  That time
>included producing and refining the "crash" sound effects that come
>out *>IN STEREO<* while the ball is bouncing (eat your hearts out
>Atari)!

etc etc etc etc (yawn)

Why is it that Amigaphiles make a big deal of electronic trickery,
when all it can do is pretty pictures, and generate "crash" and "woosh"
noises? Maybe they see it only as a games machine. Juggling bit planes
is no use when you want to display text, or actually do computation
quickly (I refer of course to the recent dhrystone benchmarks).

I accept that architecture of an Amiga allows it to draw a better
bouncing ball, so when I want to draw bouncing balls I'll buy an Amiga.

Nigel