Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k Subject: Re: Mac vs. Amiga Message-ID: <1525@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 21-Jan-87 23:24:41 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.1525 Posted: Wed Jan 21 23:24:41 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Jan-87 20:10:55 EST References: <8701210852.AA06243@violet.berkeley.edu> Sender: root@lsuc.UUCP Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Organization: Consultant, Toronto Lines: 110 Summary: A new approach In article <8701210852.AA06243@violet.berkeley.edu> mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, Take a giant step outside your min) writes: > ... > >>> Get an Atari ST! Like 1/2 the price of the amiga and essentially the >>> same features. OK, the amiga has a little better graphics, > >Right. Better resolution in both directions, and 4096 colors on-screen ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ - actually that's not true but it's not relevent to what I want to talk about right now. >vs 16 (or is it 8?). > >It's also got better sound (if that's what you're into). For the price of an Amiga in Canada, I can buy an ST and a *good* synth and MIDI software to integrate them. > >>> but then the ST has a better OS > >Well, the ST OS may be better than MS-DOS. The interesting question >about the AmigaDOS is whether it's better than Unix for a single-user >workstation. It's definitely got features that Unix could use. That >you can put TCP/IP and NFS on the Amiga without mangling the guts of >the OS is one of them. Ditto for pipes. > >Does Atari have a multitasking OS for the ST yet? Or are you still >stuck with CP/M-68K? Well, I'm running OS-9 which is in my opinion better than AmigaDOS, but again, that's not important right now. >Whereas the Amiga can be bought for < $1400 in that configuration. ... >Ok, now down to something serious. When someone says "Should I buy an > computer?", the correct answer is *NOT* "yes," "no," or "Buy a >instead." The correct answer is "What are you going to do with it?" > Ah. Now for the *important* stuff! :-) Actually, you know, this approach to choosing a computer doesn't work as well as it used to. In fact, maybe it never did work very well. The fact is, most computers can usually do pretty much what most any other computer can do. At least this is true in the range of the Amiga, Atari, Mac and IBM PC-AT's (plain PC's are pointless now and the Mac is almost pointless). The "thousands of programs" argument doesn't generally wash. In fact, it never really was that good an argument. Try some detailed research. Make a list of commercial and public domain program. Everything you can get (not just the stuff you are targetting as your interest). Now start crossing out the stuff you aren't interested in. Then cross out software that duplicates other software. Knock out things you won't have the *time* to run more than a handful of times. What are you left with? Probably not much. As for the "bird in the hand" software, that's a gamble. Ask a CP/M'er or owner of an Apple II how much new stuff has come out for them lately. There hasn't been much of significance. When the PC was new it couldn't match CP/M and Wordstar for word processing. Now the standards are MultiMate WordPerfect and Volkswriter Deluxe on MS-DOS and Word on the Mac. There is good reason to believe that this level of software will be reached on the Amiga and ST's this year. Certainly it took longer on the MS-DOS and Macs, but that was because a lot wasn't known when these machines hit the market. Nowadays programmers are more experienced. The value of compilers wasn't realized until the PC's. The use of Windows was new ground for the Mac programmers. The first 2 - 3 years of programming developments on the PC's and Macs was pretty much equalled in the first year of the Amiga or the ST. It may be *safer* to buy the machines where the "excitement" is because that's where the most creativity tends to be. In fact, in retrospect, this may be the one thing that has been consistent. Look back on the history of all the big selling computers and you will find that each one of them had this "excitement" when they hit the market. There has *never* been a sleeper which has turned out in the long run to be a success. Never? Well, maybe the Radio Shack Color Computer. I can't think of any other exception. In fact, even the Color Computer was highly praised in Byte when it first hit the market. >Anyone who's trying to decide between an Amiga and a Mac should look >at an ST. It may be just what they want, and they can save money >buying it. Likewise, anybody thinking about an ST should look at the >Amiga and the Mac. The extra software currently available for the Mac, You know, I really can't think of any good reasons to want to buy the current Mac. Possibly the new open architecture Mac which may or may not exist, but certainly not the current Mac Plus. As was mentioned earlier, the ST with Magic Sac will run most Mac software. It often runs it better than a real Mac (sometimes fast as was mentioned, and often with better screen resolution if you buy a monochrome monitor for the ST instead of the color monitor). As I've said above though, the "thousands of programs" argument has never been all that useful and the "what are you going to do with it" approach doesn't help much more. >or the extra capabilities in the Amiga, may make the difference >between an expensive doorstop and a usefull tool. But without knowing This I can agree with. >what's going to be done with it, you can't say either way. They may >even want to go look at boxes out of the MicroToy (tm Erik the Fair, I >think) class, if they can afford them. ... The more I think about it, we're coming pretty close to "pick your favorite color" approach to computers. Maybe that's good. I dunno.