dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (09/24/86)
>Mr Bezanson writes: >You missed the point here, you can graphically edit ALL the Macs resources >(windows, dialogs, menus, icons, strings, etc...) without having to change >any of the original programs code or need for any recompiling. If I want to >change/modify a Mac Menu, all I have to do is use a resource editor. You >have to recompile with the new code AND ORIGINAL SOURCE [Flame On: No wonder >you need Multitasking, you have to do many things to make one change: Flame >off] If you ignore the last line, he is essentially correct. But then again, it's only a small part of the big picture. Of Course the MAC has better development software out... it's had several years and 5 different MAC versions to accumulate it over. >>The Amiga's disk interface is far faster than the MAC's. That should say it >>all. There's very little in the DOS that requires byte boundary access >>anyway. >WRONG!!! Though the Amiga may be faster from a hardware DESIGN point, in >practical use, I could always go to sleep waiting for it to read in a disk, and >I could watch ROOTS in the time it took to open up it's 'folders'. The Amiga >OS, at least from Intuition/Finder Section was defintely slower than on the >Mac 512E or Plus. The floppies on the MAC+ are faster than the floppies on the Amiga. Why, I don't know. However, the Amiga beats out all previous versions of the MAC, I think. >The Mac is far easier to use, because Apple created a standard interface that >99% of all Mac programs follow. You can use nearly any mac program, to some >basic extent, without ever having read the documentation. I hate the 2 button >mouse on the Amiga. One minute you use the right button to open a window, the >next you have to use another button. It has less functionality than the Mac >Mouse. The MAC interface is not that much different than the Amiga's. I think the usefulness of either is in the eye of the beholder. Most MAC users would prefer the MAC interface; Most Amiga users would prefer the Amiga interface. >The Amiga is a great piece of hardware, but it was brought out by an ailing >firm that is still on the edges of financial disaster, and the Amiga is not >helping Commodore out a lot. The Atari ST for it's price and software has the >Amiga beat out, and the Mac edges out the Atari in the higher end market. >The Amiga has probably seen it's last days as a viable computer, due to price >drops in Atari and Apple lines, and the introduction of Apples //GS. > >Time is a telling factor. Let's have a net re-union next year and see if >the Amiga is still sold by Commodore (or anyone else). Commodores low-end >market is falling to the big boys. We shall see. From experience, small ventures by people who care usually turn out to be quite a bit better then large ventures by big companies. -Matt
c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (Christian Wiedmann) (09/24/86)
In article <8609240608.AA20322@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > > If you ignore the last line, he is essentially correct. But then >again, it's only a small part of the big picture. Of Course the MAC has >better development software out... it's had several years and 5 different >MAC versions to accumulate it over. I don't really see how having 5 versions of a computer helps bring out development software. Also, Lisa Pascal never did run on a mac. > The floppies on the MAC+ are faster than the floppies on the Amiga. >Why, I don't know. However, the Amiga beats out all previous versions of >the MAC, I think. My impression was that although the Amiga did beat out the older Macs overall, several functions were slower (mainly on the desktop). This of course is an unfair comparison, since the Mac didn't use a hierarchical file system then. > The MAC interface is not that much different than the Amiga's. I >think the usefulness of either is in the eye of the beholder. Most MAC >users would prefer the MAC interface; Most Amiga users would prefer the >Amiga interface. The point, though, isn't ease of use, but consistency. From what I've heard, Commodore is allowing more flexibility in user interfaces than Apple. The programmer can use Intuition, or he could write his own routines. This probably will induce some programmers to develop neater, "more efficient" ways of using a program. >>The Amiga is a great piece of hardware, but it was brought out by an ailing >> [argument ommitted] >>market is falling to the big boys. > > We shall see. From experience, small ventures by people who care >usually turn out to be quite a bit better then large ventures by big companies. > > -Matt I have no doubt that the Amiga will still be around in a year, but I also don't think it ever will be more than a fun computer to play around with. It is true that small ventures usually are better, but often they also get swallowed up by other larger ventures. I would buy an Amiga now if I didn't already have a Mac. -Christian Pnews: .signature file ignored due to tastelessness.