Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ukma!uunet!nuchat!uhnix1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Another Amiga competitor? Message-ID: <851@sugar.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Oct-87 18:55:15 EDT Article-I.D.: sugar.851 Posted: Thu Oct 1 18:55:15 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Oct-87 00:49:44 EDT References: <2901@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <812@sugar.UUCP> <1630@chinet.UUCP> Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX Lines: 30 Xref: utgpu comp.sys.misc:814 comp.sys.amiga:8419 Summary: True, true. In article <1630@chinet.UUCP>, sid@chinet.UUCP (Sid Grange) writes: > As was stated, the proprietary system doesn't > multitask, but this machines *seems* to have a reasonable potential for > running real Unix, where the Amiga does not (I've had one, and know it's > problems, so let's not debate it :-). No argument. But, funny as it may seem, I don't want to run a third party operating system... even UNIX. I'm sure you're as aware as I am of the resounding success of such products (let's see... UNIX on the PDP-11 is a hit in certain technical markets, but that's about it). I want to be able to sell any programs I come up with. Right now the Amiga is the only machine with an acceptable native O/S aimed at the home market. I mean, if I wanted to run UNIX an IBM-PC/AT is much cheaper. > Plus the machine appears to be over > four times faster than an Amiga or ST. True, and a palpable hit. But then, the 68020 improves the Amiga's speed by a factor of at least 3 for CPU-intensive computation. Disk-intensive stuff is going to be I/O bound anyway. > On the other hand, it may never reach > the U.S. Sigh. Anyone remember the Torch XXX? I lusted in my heart for that one. What the Amiga/Mac/ST should have been. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.