Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: A Programmer Praises the Mac (really more Mac-Amiga wars)
Message-ID: <8804222258.AA27127@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 22 Apr 88 22:58:10 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 57

>Can you hook up a full-page monitor and get up to 1200x800 resolution?
>Can you hook up two of them and get 2400x800 resolution?  The point
>that was made is that you can have MULTIPLE MONITORS, or differently
>sized monitors, all seamessly running as one desktop.  And the Amiga
>CAN NOT do that.

	Sorry ruin your fun, but on the first point you can.

>As I said above, this is just plain WRONG.  You can get full-page
>displays for the Mac SE and Plus that work just as the Mac II's
>monitors do--multiple (possibly large) monitors forming *one* desktop
>area.

	Under the Amiga OS V1.2, it is difficult to support multiple video
cards as one contiguous workbench.  In fact, the Mac is the only workstation
I know of that can.  My opinion of the ability rates a "cute, but not as
useful as one might think".

>>I can go to any Amiga, even one built in 1985, and know that I can count
>>on 704 x 470 resolution, and all 4096 colors. I think this is a
>>better alternative to "multiple display cards," no?

	As far the current 704 x 470 display capability of the Amiga,
the price for said display is the loss of two or three of the 8 available
sprites, and interlace.  HOWEVER, there are now several de-interlacing
devices available on the market which will give you a NON-INTERLACE
704 x 470 (x 4) display with a standard Amiga. 

>No.  For limited money, yes.  But *all* software for the Mac will run
>on *any* display setup (unless it's a color paint program which has no
>reason to run in monochrome).  And there are some display cards out
>which have 24-bit color--16,277,216 colors times 1000*800 resolution.
>No WAY your Amiga will match that, no matter HOW much you spend.

	If you care to spend that much $$... Also, if you've ever *seen*
a 24 bit display on the Mac, you'll notice that there is a hefty price 
for the resolution... your Mac II slows down by a huge factor (for display
IO).  As far as the Amiga goes, considering that 1Kx1K monocrome
monitors have already been demo'd working on an Amiga, I figure it won't
be long.  In fact, the Amiga has a slight advantage here in that it has
coprocessor graphics support... i.e. it still screams even with the large
monitors.

>Of course, most of us are on limited budgets, and the Amiga is a hell
>of a lot of power for the money, but in terms of absolute power, the
>Mac has the Amiga beat.

	I would disagree.  If you are talking about processor power,
any Amiga and almost any Mac can be configured with 25Mhz 68020's.
There are even 68030 cards available for the Amiga (and I assume for
the Mac).  I could say a lot more, but have no desire to see this
flare up into a 'my computer is better than your computer' war.

	The magic word here is "MONEY"... if you've got the money,
you can buy a product or products that do wonders with either machine.


				-Matt