Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cwruecmp!neoucom!wtm
From: wtm@neoucom.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga vs. IBM-PC: A Performance Query
Message-ID: <594@neoucom.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-May-87 22:15:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: neoucom.594
Posted: Mon May 25 22:15:21 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 28-May-87 05:57:07 EDT
References: <534@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Lines: 40
Summary: a SHORT comparison...


Last year I taught an introductory computer class for Biology grad
students.  The main point of the class was to teach the studetns to
use personal computers as convience tools; to that end we learned
how to use BASIC (I know, I know...) to quickly knock off simple
problems.

One of the Problems I gave them was to program the Shell Sort
algorithm.  One of the students ran the same BASIC code on both the
4.77 MHz XT and the Amiga in Microsoft BASIC for each respective
machine.  Sorting the same 1000 single-precision floating point
numbers took about 90 sec. on the Amiga and about 120 sec. on the
XT.  Both series were indentical and in the same order on input to
both machines.  The Amiga was running BASIC alone from Workbench.

Given that the BASIC interpreter for the Amiga is more complex than
the XT, this seems like a pretty credible real-worldish performace
versus the XT for the Amiga.

Of course, we're comparing apples and oranges here, and there is no
simple way for an XT to do the neat graphics things that the Amiga
is capable of.  And IBM still doesn't have a blit chip as standard
equipment in the new models.

Re: the mention of the IBM 9000 "Scientific" computer. Gaaak!  The
operating system was a mix of CP/M and Intel's ISIS-- or so it
looked.  Handling of real time interrupts was terrible, as they
expected you to do so in Microsoft BASIC (which had unbelievably
numerous bugs).  You could get the assembler, if you begged on your
knees long enough at a Blue Alter  (I have too much pride, so we
never got it).  We were trying to run an HPLC with the darn thing
using IBM's own LC software.  Never did get it to work because the
computer would never stay running for more than a few days at a
time.  IBM has since sold their lab instrument division to Nicolet
who is well on the way to killing off the remaining products, or so
it seems.  The integal Data Products manufactured printer mechanism
also smoked with predictable regularity.  This is about the worst
personal computer that I've had the occasion to work with.

 --Bill  (wtm@neoucom.UUCP   ...!cbatt!neoucom!wtm)