Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!oddjob!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!urbsdc!jwilson
From: jwilson@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Amiga or PC-AT ?
Message-ID: <62300002@urbsdc>
Date: 2 Aug 88 18:58:00 GMT
References: <1820006@hpuamsa.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:hpuamsa.UUCP:1820006:urbsdc:62300002:000:1342
Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!jwilson    Aug  2 13:58:00 1988



The Amiga is an inherently better graphics machine than an IBM.  Although you
can get graphics cards for an IBM that will give you very good graphics, the
Amiga has its capabilites built in.  The Amiga also has the advantage of having
three coprocessor chips built in designed to speed up and otherwise improve
its graphics capabilities.  And, the Amiga graphics are not as unexpandable as
you think.  The 2000 has a special slot designed for video cards (like genlocks,
higher-resolution displays, etc.) and Commodore is working on upgraded 
chip sets for the Amiga that will give it even better graphics.  I could write
volumes explaining the advantages of the Amiga, but my statements would 
probably not sway you much, and there are many others who know more than I do.
Remember, the Amiga's 704 X 480 ( overscan, interlaced) 4096 (HAM mode)  color
picture quality graphics are done on a regular RGBI monitor that only costs
about $250, instead of a special PGA, VGA, multisync, whatever you need for
the IBM high res modes.

I'm sure mine is not the only response you'll get.  Hope I've helped.

Jeff Wilson
sometimes of the University of Illinois, sometimes of Gould CSD Software 
development center-Urbana, always of the Amiga community, always presenting
my own and no one else's opionions (but you knew that already, didn't you.)