Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell!varian!vaxwaller!richc
From: richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: IBM vs AMIGA cost
Summary: Cost Comparisons
Message-ID: <4252@vaxwaller.UUCP>
Date: 8 Mar 90 20:23:23 GMT
References: <1181@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Organization: Varian Instruments, Walnut Creek CA
Lines: 25

In article <1181@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
> In <5527@ur-cc.UUCP>, jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes:
> >Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone
> >system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with
> >monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600
> >(ed discount price). Is this true?

Even with a 68030 running at 33 MHz the AMIGA would still have its
co-processors running at 7 MHz.  The death knell of the AMIGA is in the
fact that CBM did not keep pace with its co-processors.  A 640x400 16 color
interlaced display today is a joke.  A 640x400 noninterlaced display with
only 4 colors is laughable.  The system I discribed has a 800x600 noninterlaced
256 color display and a 1024x768 interlaced 16 color display at 84 Hz
which has very little flicker.  A comparable AMIGA system would require
a flicker fixer at least to get a 640x400 noninterlaced 16 color
display (about $500 more).  The real world price of a comparable system
does not exist unfortuneately. I am very disapointed with CBM. I still
feel they were the first with a real-time operating system and higher
resolution screens but didn't keep improving the product fast enough 
to stay competitive. 
-- 
-- 
Rich Commins   (415)939-2400				          \  /\
Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598    \/--\
{ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc