Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!cthulhu
From: cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: amiga on a mac ii budget- the sequel
Message-ID: <6536@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 2 Aug 88 22:17:52 GMT
References: <575@super.ORG> <3075@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <179@kesmai.COM>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich)
Lines: 44

In article <179@kesmai.COM> dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) writes:
>In article <3075@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes:
>> In article <575@super.ORG>, rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) writes:
>> Sorry but you guys are missing the whole issue.  Of coarse you can beef up
>> a 2000 to almost a Mac II level.
We're comparing Apples (no pun intended :-) to Oranges here, there are some
features the Mac has that the Amiga doesn't and vice-versa.  But the fact that the Amiga *is* comparable to the Mac II, at 3x the price, is pretty nice.

>> (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet which is a key
feature in my >> mind) Really?  People keep talking about this, but I
just can't understand why people need six trillion colors, except for
bragging purposes.  I'll admit that easy access to 256 colors would be
nice, but you just can't tell the difference with more.  Actually, I'm kind of
curious as to why one would need 8 bits of color. Making a bar graph with 4097
bars on it?  Can you really see the difference between a HAM smooth shade and
an 8 bit smooth shade?!?!?!?  

>> Anyway the problem is once you beef >> up the Amiga to a Mac II
level, there is little else you can do.  >> The Mac II starts at the
high level.  There is little that you can do, except for adding the
same stuff you'd add on a Mac II... And since these "high level"
things are included by the manufacturer, you have to contend with any
mistakes they made -- for example, the Mac II's 68881 is useless --
the interface makes it quite often slower than doing the math on the
processor!  
>> You still have open slots [on the Mac II].  
You'll still have open slots on a 2000, for both Amiga and PC boards...

>> buying a Mac II instead of a maxed out Amiga 2000.
Maxed out?  Not likely... 

>>So the real point is where is the Amiga 4000?
How about the 2500?  It gives you UNIX, an MMU, a 68020 -- the few things the
Mac has which I think are really worthwhile!  With X, the super hi-res
monochrome monitor and an ethernet setup it beats the pants off of a Mac II
in the workstation market... It's not out here yet, but they've got them in
Europe, so it's only a matter of time.

So I'd say the bottom line is that real reason to want a Mac ][ is the
software.  It makes Mac software fast enough to be palatable, and there's
something to be said for that.  I'd give a lot to have Microsoft Word
or Adobe Illustrator on the Amiga, but then again, I'd much rather have a
$7000 Amiga...   In any case, this discussion is tending more and more towards
religion, so I motion we adjourn...
						-- Jim