Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Easy of programming, Mac, Amiga
Message-ID: <8609182006.AA22393@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 16:06:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: cory.8609182006.AA22393
Posted: Thu Sep 18 16:06:04 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 01:49:06 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 33


>1)  The Amiga is full COLOR!  I do not care what anyone says, color is great
>..but...For any application, the MAC display is much better.  I even connected
>a 9" b/w monitor to the Amiga (There is a video out as well as RF out and RGB
>out), the resolution is not at the Mac level.  The display on the Mac 'feels'
>better.  This is the best way to put it.

	It would have been nice if the amiga had a larger screen in terms of
bit width, but I think Amiga made a good decision going for NTSC compatibility.
It allows us to use Off The Shelf analog rgb monitors (like Sony's).  I have
found that the video monitor one uses makes all the difference in the world.
Before I got my Sony, I was using a Commodore monitor designed for the C64...
80 column text didn't work so well.  But with the sony, every character in
80-col mode and in every color mode is crisp... it has made a HUGE difference!

	Though the Mac has a greater width/height resolution, the Amiga has
better display, and, when displaying digitized BW photos, it's better than
the MAC (by about 14x).  This is due to the fact that you can grey-scale
individual bits on the Amiga.

>6) Mac disk drives are faster than the Amiga, I do not know why this is.  The
>Amiga disks use a DMA xfer technique, so they should be faster.

	Yah, I wonder why?  Anybody know what the MAC+ is doing?  I think part
of the problem is that the Amiga's buffering was really *badly* done.  A simple
organizational modification to the placement of file header blocks and 
sector allocation blocks would make things a lot faster.  Have you ever tried
writing an 800K file out to a blank disk then reading it back in?  About every
30K or so (~3 tracks) the disk has to make a seek or two to get the sector
allocation information (or something like that).  Fixing that would almost
halve the time it takes to load a large non-fragmented executable.

				-Matt