Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site aum.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!amd!amdcad!lll-crg!qantel!ptsfa!aum!freed
From: freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: Reply to: Questions about ST vs. AMIGA
Message-ID: <409@aum.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 11:44:34 EST
Article-I.D.: aum.409
Posted: Wed Dec 18 11:44:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 01:23:32 EST
References: <342@unmg.UUCP> <840@h-sc1.UUCP> <352@well.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Aurora Systems Bunch
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:1215 net.micro.atari:2050

> > (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.

how do you explain the much better drystone results of the ST?
(the compiler can not be the only thing responsible)

> > (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)

A *BIG* point about the ST is that 640 x 400, non-interlaced monochrome creates
a very good looking window environment that the AMIGA cannot match.

> > (e) the AMIGA has a multitasking operating system. Definitely a big plus,
> >     but as soon as OS9 is available for either machine, this does not
> >     matter anymore.
>  
>     Perhaps, perhaps not.  The Amiga's OS ( NOT the AmigaDOS, but the under-
>     lying kernal ) was specifically designed to take advantage of the large
>     amount of intelligence held in the coprocessors.  Unless the OS9 imple-
>     mentation is done VERY well, it probably will lose in efficiency.  Note
>     that OS9 was probably not designed for a high-power graphics environment,
>     and Amiga's EXEC was.

I do not think that your argument here is complete. It seems that I could argue
similarly in favor of the ST.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Erik James Freed
			   Aurora Systems
			   San Francisco, CA
			   {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed