Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!caip!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!we53!wucs!wuphys!lel
From: lel@wuphys.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.apple
Subject: Re: stuff in general
Message-ID: <431@wuphys.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 15:00:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: wuphys.431
Posted: Mon Oct  6 15:00:53 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 02:30:16 EDT
References: <673@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: lel@wuphys.UUCP (Lyle E. Levine)
Organization: Physics Dept., Washington U. in St. Louis
Lines: 54
Keywords: //gs, c128vs//e speed

In article <673@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> kus3@sphinx.UUCP (Bob Kusumoto) writes:
>on the //gs: personally, I rather have this that the amiga because of the
>price of the //gs compared to the amiga (I don't remember the current prices of
>the amiga but for a complete system of the //gs is running around $1600 for
>the base cpu, monitor, keyboard, mouse and 1 or more drives (3.25 or 5.5,
>can't remember) and I can live with that better than what the amiga has to
>offer me. I don't remember about drive access time, but if the mac emulation 
>mode for the amiga has access times just as slow, i'll take the //gs anyday.

I don't normally post corrections but this time I just have to.

Price of an Amiga System:

          Amiga computer, 640x400 Analogue RGB monitor,
          512K mem, internal and external 880K microfloppy drives,
          (88 key keyboard and mouse come with the cpu)
              
                               - $1395

As adveritized in Amiga World (October issue).

The computer has no Mac emulation mode but has essentially the same
user interface with a command language as well. It has a 7+ MHz
32/16 bit 68000 processor with 3 coprocessor chips to handle DMA,
graphics, and sound. The sound on the //GS beats the Amiga but
you can't have everything. Oh yes, in version 1.2 of the operating
system, the drive access times and read/write times are quite a bit
faster than on the Mac. This will be out very soon. For a computations
 comparison, (perhaps unfair) I can run a life program on the Amiga
that does 19.8 generations/second on 388x188 pixels. This makes use
of one of the Amiga's special coprocessor chips. The Mac can't even
come close.  In addition, the Amiga is FULLY multitasking.

Oh yes, Apple did a great job when it made the Apple II expandable.
Why did they forget this when they made the Mac? I'm VERY glad to
see that the new //GS is also expandable.

Another thing the //GS has over the Amiga is that for expanding
the amiga much more, you need a card cage. Also, the Amiga can only
directly address 8 1/2 Meg. (Not a severe restriction)

If I have offended anyone, I'm sorry. Please direct any complaints
to "VOID complaints();".

If anyone has any real questions, please feel free to e-mail me.

                   From a user of Apple II's, Mac's and Amiga's,
                                - Lyle Levine


                   Paths ->   ihnp4!wuphys!lel
			      seismo!wucs!wuphys!lel

P.S. I still think the Apple II is a great machine.