Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!3comvax!mykes From: mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga Vs. Unix Message-ID: <402@3comvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 14:43:52 EST Article-I.D.: 3comvax.402 Posted: Tue Feb 4 14:43:52 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 20:15:38 EST References: <11694@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA Lines: 48 In article <11694@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> dillon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > Assuming were on a comparable UNIX machine... say a Micro-Vax 2 >with a .. what was it? oh yeh, somewhere around 880 vertical and many >more than 1024 across (I forgot the exact numbers). Each pixel having >8 bits in depth. Pick any 256 of a 256x256x256 = 16million color Palette. >Were talking about a grayscale photo of reagan in one corner of the screen >looking as good as a 35mm print. Now please stop raving about the Amiga's >graphics. On such a machine, it would probably take about the same number >of lines for everything ASSUMING YOU USED AMIGA DOS DRIVER'S IN THE AMIGA >CODE. Otherwise, if you had to open the device manually on the Amiga, >the UNIX code would be about 5x SHORTER. > Gimme a break. A micro-vax 2 comparable to an Amiga? That is real flattering considering that the micro-vax costs 10x the price of the Amiga. I would hardly call that a comparable machine, except in power. Do you wanna talk Crays vs. Amigas next? What percentage of the Unix terminals out there are this great graphics terminal you describe? Sounds like it costs more than the Amiga by itself, too. You seem to want to ignore the fact that everyone who uses unix does not use the same terminal - ergo ZERO STANDARDIZATION. Only vertical market-type applications that require all this graphics power you describe will use graphics, etc. The Amiga's graphics are certainly not the greatest ever, but I know there is no other computer under $5000 that has even the Amiga's graphics abilities. The best thing about the Amiga's graphics is that it's standard - which means that every amiga can do the same graphics - compared to Unix which requires a costly terminal and which features no standard graphics (S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D). Again I reiterate my feelings. Amiga gives us all the tools we need to make our own custom libraries, which when used across many programs makes these sources smaller and easier to develop. I prefer to have lower level primitives than some higher level interface that is less flexible. Amiga has a simple interface called the CLI, which allows all that Unix trash (make, ls, grep, etc.) to be ported nearly unmodified from unix. Unlike the Mac, you are not forced to use the intuition interface - nobody has a gun to your head. To summarize, not only is the Amiga OS just as easy to implement unix-style programs for, but it has features like intuition that can greatly enhance the boring unix-style of program - and these features are global across some 50,000 machines now (all the Amigas - see 1/25 issue of InfoWorld), instead of requiring some environment like a microvax 2 and an expensive terminal that very few will have. BTW, I have little doubt that Amiga could have been much higher in resolution, without flicker even, but the cost would have been NTSC compatibility, a higher cost for monitors, and the exclusion of the ability to add things like Laser Disk Players and VCRs as peripherals. I am more than satisfied that Amiga did about as well as anyone can do with NTSC.