Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!umd5!uvaarpa!virginia!kesmai!dca From: dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: amiga on a mac ii budget- the sequel Message-ID: <179@kesmai.COM> Date: 1 Aug 88 19:25:54 GMT References: <575@super.ORG> <3075@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> Organization: Kesmai Corporation, Charlottesville, VA Lines: 65 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: > > > > I got a number of good replies on the 'amiga on a mac ii budget' question. > > Thanks to all of you. > > Sorry but you guys are missing the whole issue. Of coarse you can beef up > a 2000 to almost a Mac II level. (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet > which is a key feature in my mind). 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. You still have open slots. Lots of > vendors are making all kinds of cards to plug into the Mac II. At least > 10 for every 1 in the Amiga market. > > So if you want a Mac II level machine you are much likely to be better off > buying a Mac II instead of a maxed out Amiga 2000. So the real point is > where is the Amiga 4000? Why isn't there one if CBM wants to go against > Apple. My 1000 is getting pretty wimpy these days. Am I going to have > to buy a Mac II, or PS/2 to get the power I want, the graphics I want, > the options I want? > > You guys have great ideas for Amiga 2000 systems, problem is I want a Mac II > or better system, I don't want a huge pile of hardware trying to be a > Mac II or better system. So where is the Amiga 4000? > > Wayne Knapp Personally, I don't see it. In this country, Commodore isn't a high end machine company. Even so, the 2000 is extensible to MAC II like performance with add in cards. As long as the price is comparable who cares wether it is an add in card or on the motherboard. I ask you, what Mac add in do I want that I couldn't put in an expanded Amiga. Yes the Amiga graphics aren't up to the MAC II standard and unless Commodore really wants to enter the high-end market-place with a machine priced out of the range of most people it won't happen because the memory is currently out of shlitz in the current graphics modes (though they could add more colors in low-res). A 32-bit Amiga could fix this but would require significant work in the graphics chipset and a new machine. Is there enough demand to make it worthwhile to market such a machine? I doubt it. Yes, the MAC II is a powerful, expandable, expensive machine. But, and it's a big but, it is at a distinct disadvantage in some arenas to an expanded Amiga. Believe it or not the thing that will eat you alive on a Mac II is not the hardware but the software. The monochrome software is reasonably priced because like an expanded Amiga it is borrowing it from a lower-cost machine marketplace (Mac 512, Plus, SE, etc.). The color software is a different story, for the cost of a single paint program that isn't THAT much better than a single paint program for the Amiga you could buy practically every paint program available for the Amiga. An expanded Amiga has the large advantage that its color software is subsidized by all those unexpanded machines out there and as such is priced commensurately. Until a lower cost Mac II or a color SE comes out and get circulated in the market you will pay through the nose for Mac II color software. To a lesser degree, the same things are probably true of Mac II specific hardware add-ons. It sounds like to me, you really do want a Mac II. I'm more interested in expanding my 2000. The funny thing is the Mac II isn't exciting. Oh, it's got a glorious display and runs fast enough (so long as you aren't using the color modes) but excitement is usually generated by software intended for multi-thousands of people not for businesses and the few people that can afford a 5k plus machine. David Albrecht