Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!tomb
From: tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Autocad (was OS/2 vs AmigaDOS)
Message-ID: <5160039@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 25 May 89 18:25:29 GMT
References: <15588@swrinde.nde.swri.edu>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 32

kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes:
>
>Agreed, AutoCad is much too expensive to ever be sold on more than a few
>Amigas. On the other hand (as I have mentioned before) the Amiga would
>probably be an excellent market for GenericCad. It's cheap enough to fit
>well withing the Amiga market & has enough capabilities to meet most needs.
>
>I realize that Commodore doesn't seem to want the Amiga to penetrate
>the real hi-resolution applications markets, but I still think that
>there would be enough sales to justify it. I know several people who
>would buy an implementation of GenericCad for the Amiga and I'm not
>really looking, just hear such in passing.
>
>It would need to be a full implementation of course, but...
>
>Kent Polk
>----------

Have you tried XCad?  I know the AmigaWorld review wasn't very
complementary, but I went through it this weekend and found that I
could agree with only two of the reviewer's points.  I did write to
AmigaWorld with a detailed complaint; hope to hear from them.  I use
XCad regularly and find it very good for the 2-D tasks it was intended
for.  I think the price won't be that different from GenericCad if
you add in all the GenericCad modules you need to make it really
work.  I haven't personally used GenericCad, but when I compared
capabilities with a colleague that owns it, I found I could do
a whole lot of things he couldn't...

Cheers,
Tom Bruhns
tomb%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com