Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc! From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amy 68030 vs Mac IIcx Message-ID: <1233@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> Date: 11 Mar 90 11:22:49 GMT Lines: 36 Return-Path: To: van-bc!rnews In , cmm1@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: >Simple question: > >Which is (if one indeed is) faster? By how much? Judging from running Amax, the Amiga is faster by about 20-30%, due to the CPU being less busy with the mundane screen stuff, mostly. >Does AmyOs multitask as well as Multifinder? Are most Amy programs >pretty reliable when multi-tasking? Arrgh! I know your question is in good faith, but I fear you may strike a nerve here. All the answers you get will indicate that not only the Amiga folks figure it multitasks better than multifinder, but that it is only by stretching the definitions to near he breaking point that multifinder can be called multitasking at all. Most Amiga programs are pretty reliable when they are multitasking, which is to say, all the time. Programs need not be specifically written to multitask properly. >If I buy an Amy 68030 box, I plan to use it to emulate a Mac most of >the time. How good is Amax? Does it support hard drives yet? >Thanx in advance... Can't help you much with that part. You will probably get more than a few heated replies, so be prepared, and ignore the heat. Stick around and find out the differences between the Mac and the Amiga. You will be glad you did. -larry -- Entomology bugs me. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+