Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!cbmvax!bpa!burdvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Comparing the Mac and the Amiga
Message-ID: <3604@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 22:23:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780c.3604
Posted: Wed Sep 17 22:23:14 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 00:17:23 EDT
References: <1273@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1274@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <837@navajo.STANFORD.EDU>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 27
Xref: mnetor net.micro.mac:7084 net.micro.amiga:4727

In article <837@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> ali@navajo.UUCP (Ali Ozer) writes:
>
>Hmm, Pascal on the Mac is more like Basic on the Amiga than like C on the
>Amiga. AmigaBasic is a wonderful language that lets you do truly
>neat things with one or two statements. You can trace, open windows,
>Beep as much as you like, cut/paste, etc...

Uh, excuse me, but Pascal on the Mac does nothing special.  It's all
just calls to the OS.  A C program to do something and a Pascal program
to do the same thing both end up being about the same number of lines.

>run 300x200 life on the at 20 generations/sec.

Amiga definitely wins here.  The fastest I have seen life on the Mac is
about 450,000 cells/second, while the Amiga seems to do 1,200,000.

This whole discussion has gotten silly.  Give me any two reasonable
machines, and two weeks to play with them, and tell me which machine
you want to be better, and I can prove to you that it is.

ps: I am glad to finally see an Amiga owner who can say "Mac" rather
than "MAC"!
-- 
"I don't want no god on my lawn, just a flower I can help along"

Tim Smith       USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim   Compuserve: 72257,3706
		Delphi or GEnie: mnementh