Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!decwrl!hplabs!cae780!leadsv!laic!nova!darin
From: darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Self-modifying code
Message-ID: <309@laic.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 88 19:55:05 GMT
References: <1988Jul26.024039.28579@utzoo.uucp> <4333@cbmvax.UUCP> <3057@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@laic.UUCP
Lines: 22

In article <3057@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes:
> This just like comparing the Amiga to the Mac II.  The Amiga isn't that
> speedy if you are using HAM 640x400, which is 192k of memory.  Then 
> the Mac II also slows down in its 640x400x8 mode which is 256k of memory.
> But I would having a 256 color palette is much nicer than HAM in my opinion. 
> 
> P.S. The Amiga was pretty hot three years ago, but I just think that in 
> general it is no longer that wonderful.  Time for a major upgrade? 

however, it is still the biggest bang for the buck.  It is still the
only computer with NTSC video, without having to pay megabucks.

I could buy a 68030 board (and extra 32 bit ram when the prices go down),
plug it into my Amiga, and still have spent less money than a Mac II
with color - and the Mac still won't have multitasking without spending
more money.  The extra colors and higher resolution on the MacII are
nice, but the Mac II just isn't a personal computer anymore... (sort
of like a workstation, but without the performance)

Darin Johnson (...pyramid.arpa!leadsv!laic!darin)
              (...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!darin)
	"All aboard the DOOMED express!"