Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!breuel
From: breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA
Message-ID: <845@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 14:36:41 EST
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.845
Posted: Wed Dec 18 14:36:41 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 05:34:17 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 45
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1208 net.micro.atari:2033

Thank you very much for replying to my questions. Since I believe that
other potential buyers might be intersted in this discussion, I am
following up to the net.

||(b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the
||    ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed.
|
|    Absolutely false.  The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors
|    which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the
|    CPU were responsible for display updates.  Note that the coprocessors
|    also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well.

Let me state the question more precisely: is there any difference in
speed between the ST and the AMIGA when either machine is just
displaying a bit image, without any active painting or sound production?

||(c) the AMIGA graphics is said to be not usable at a 
||    resolution of 640x400 for text or serious graphics applications.
|
|    Probably true, but only until monitors become available that address
|    the special problems with 640 X 400 mode (using color - there are mono-
|    chrome monitors which will work quite well at 640 X 400, and the ST, as I
|    understand it, forces monochrome at that resolution anyway)

Again, let me state the question more precisely. I thought the problem
with the AMIGA 640x400 display is that it is interlaced, and that therefore
every line only gets re-freshed at a rate of 30Hz. The only way to
'fix' this would be to use high-persistence phosphors, clearly not
a desirable solution. Is this true? How does the ST deal with
this problem?

And there are a few more questions that came to my mind in the meantime:
-- are there MacWrite type word processors available for either machine?
   How easy are they to adapt to a specific printer?
-- what terminal emulators are available for the two machines? Are
   they reliable? What protocols do they support for file transfer?
-- what graphics design programs (in the style of MacDraw) are available
   for either machine? How usable are they?
-- what is the scoop on the difference between disk capacity and disk
   speed between the ST and the AMIGA?
-- are there versions of either machine which will work with BOTH
   120/220V 50/60Hz?

						Thanks,
						Thomas.