Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!amdahl!drivax!alexande
From: alexande@drivax.UUCP (Mark Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Better Windows? (LONG) (& other topics)
Message-ID: <1627@drivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-May-87 14:30:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: drivax.1627
Posted: Thu May 21 14:30:52 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 15:00:15 EDT
References: <1568@drivax.UUCP> <732@atari.UUCP>
Reply-To: alexande@drivax.UUCP (Mark Alexander)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bob-ist Temple of Monterey
Lines: 24
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:5082 comp.sys.mac:3381 comp.sys.atari.st:3668 comp.sys.ibm.pc:4277

In article <732@atari.UUCP> dyer@atari.UUCP (Landon Dyer) writes:
>If GEM is a "very fast" enviroment, then ... then ... (giggle)
>I'm at a loss for words.  'nuff said!

I believe the original article was comparing GEM to MS-Windows.
By that standard maybe GEM is fast.  Compared to text-only
systems it's darned slow.  Your posting just flames GEM without
saying what you're comparing it with.

I'm not sure that it's possible to make a fast graphics enviroment
for machines like an 8088 PC or the original Atari ST.  I could be wrong
here, but it seems like hardware help is really required (blitters,
faster CPUs, graphics coprocessors -- gosh, that sounds like an Amiga!).

If GEM is so lousy, why is Atari selling it with their upcoming
PC clone?  Why not go with MS-Windows, which is rapidly becoming the
industry standard for PCs?  Or better yet, write your own Windows
and make it small AND fast AND robust AND powerful.  That shouldn't
be too hard :-) seeing as how crummy the existing products are.

Disclaimer: I don't use GEM.  It's too slow.
-- 
Mark Alexander	...{hplabs,seismo,sun,ihnp4}!amdahl!drivax!alexande
"Bob-ism: the Faith that changes to meet YOUR needs." -- Bob