WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (10/16/90)
I would like to make some price comparisons between various Amiga
systems and two of the new MAC systems just unveiled today.
The new MAC LC (actually, it should be called the MAC IILC, because
the only difference between this system and the original MAC II is
the lack of a FPU) gives you a 68020 running at 20Mhz, 2M of RAM, a 40MB
hard drive, color video, and keyboard for $2500 list. I will build
a similar Amiga system using an Amiga 500 as the base. Add $300 for
the monitor, which is included in the Amiga system I will compare it
against. To be fair, I will use list prices.
You will first need an A500 P/2 system. This costs $1397 list.
Next, you will need a hard drive, add $629 for the A590. You still
don't get 32-bit memory or an '020, so add $750 for for a Hurricane
500 with 1M of 32-bit RAM. The MAC LC also comes with a mono sound
digitizer, so add $75 for the FutureSound. You get $2851, which is
more expensive than the MAC LC system above, and you only get half
the hard drive space, no high-resolution non-interlaced graphics
with lots of colors, and no 1.44MB floppy drive. And, until
Commodore makes up their mind about whether or not they are going
to include AmigaOS2.0 with any of the A500 systems, you get an OS
that is not nearly as friendly as the MAC OS.
Now let's compare the MAC IISI system to a similar Amiga system.
For $3800, the MAC IISI offers standard MAC II color graphics,
an '030 running at 20Mhz, 40MB hard drive, 1.44MB SuperDrive, and
crude mono sound digitizer.
The closest Amiga system is the A3000/25-50. For $4100 you get
an '030 running at 25Mhz, FPU running at same speed, 50MB hard drive,
and inferior color graphics. You get more hard drive space, faster
CPU, and FPU. But you don't get 256 colors out of 16 Million
at 640x480 resolution, nor do you get a 1.44MB floppy or a crude
mono sound digitizer (though why you would want that particular
item is beyond me -- IMHO, Apple goofed on that one). Though the
systems are just about even, the point is that you can now get a
MAC system with better graphics for LESS.
When the A1000 was first introduced, there was a gap of thousands
of dollors between it and the nearest-capable competitor. When VGA
systems were developed, the gap narrowed considerably, but you could
always count on Apple pushing systems that were thousands of dollars
more than similarly capable Amigas. With the new MAC systems, the
situation has changed. Commodore has allowed the Amiga to stagnate,
to the point that it is now possible to purchase color MAC systems
that are hundreds of dollars LESS than similarly equipped Amigas.
Where has the Amiga's competitve color graphics gone? Down the sewer,
I guess.
-MB-rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (10/16/90)
Argg. This is going in my kill file now. Using An A500 as a base to build up a 68020 system and then compariung against an integrated machine like the Mac IILC? Apples and oranges. Trying starting with an A2000, adding a 68020 w/2megs of ram, 2091 controller and 40mb. You have a cheap machine (cheaper then $3000) and the only factor that is weaker is the color. For the Mac IIsi, just compare against an Amiga3000. The A3000 is faster is all repects. The OS is much better. And the A3000-25/50 doesn't cost $4100, thats the A3000-25/100 (atleast from the prices I've read) and Im talking street prices. the IIsi costs $3600 street. (from an Apple estimate) Again we are left with color as the only weakness. 256 colors out of 16mill is about the same as VGA. On the IBM it comes much cheaper, so why not just by an IBM? HAM-E or DCTV easily fills in this gap. (yea I know they arent true 24bit) but we are talking Multimedia which only need be NTSC, which DCTV does nicely (especially for REAL time animation.) This Mac systems are not at all impressive. In fact, they still seem alittle overpriced. (Mac classic $999?) Apple has been over pricing for years, its about time they reduced prices and cut that large profit margin of theirs. Marc if really need 256 colors displayable at once so bad, why don't you buy an IBM w/VGA or just buy those Macs. Even with lower priced Mac's, Mac software is expensive. So unless your a pirate, buying a cheaper system wont help you much. -- "NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ "Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (10/16/90)
I wanted to point out something in Marc's article... WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > The new MAC LC (actually, it should be called the MAC IILC, because >the only difference between this system and the original MAC II is >the lack of a FPU) gives you a 68020 running at 20Mhz, 2M of RAM, a 40MB ^^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^ I just discovered the origin of "LC." It means "Lacks Chip." :-) >hard drive, color video, and keyboard for $2500 list. I will build >a similar Amiga system using an Amiga 500 as the base. Add $300 for >the monitor, which is included in the Amiga system I will compare it >against. To be fair, I will use list prices. Marc, you've once again goofed. You always assume that an Apple "system" price and an Amiga "system" price are comparable because they include everything you'd need. You can have your Mac LC; I don't want it. Know why? You didn't add a monitor (quite expensive -- Apple specific) into the price. You're going to have a hard time using that system. You say that the 3000 and the Mac IIsi are comparable. This is utter crap. First of all, you've got a difference of 5Mhz in speed. I guarantee that you'll notice the lag. Secondly, you've got ONE processor in the Mac trying to run the cutesy OS and not doing a nice job of it (I've even sat down at a IIci, which is faster, and gotten impatient with the OS. The thing's SLOW!). In addition, you have a single-tasking OS equipped with a kluged task-swapper. In order to get real multitasking out of a Mac, you'd have to rewrite the entire OS and all of the software. Too many Mac programs use busy-waits to accept things like mouse button presses and keyboard input. This is the BANE of multitasking. The Amiga OS has been designed to take care of these things for you... RE: Amiga's "inferior" graphics. You've _got_ to be kidding me. Have you used a 24-bit board on a Mac? If you though that things were slow before... If you want "superior" graphics at the cost of _that_ kind of speed loss, you can have them. Me, I'll take a Toaster or a ULowell board, thank you. You see, THEY don't eat up so much CPU. The Firecracker 24 even runs UNDER the Amiga, so you don't use time on the CPU unless you actually need 24 bits. Also, RE: your comment that Commodore is allowing Amiga to stagnate, what the _hell_ do you mean? Apple's new machines (the Classic, the LC and the SI) are nothing new or revolutionary. There's nothing special. No new developments in hardware... They're just more Macs. If you're gonna compare an Apple to an Amiga, you'd better find a comparable Apple first... > -MB- Greg ---------------Greg-Harp---------------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu---------------- AMIGA! // // Don't you just hate those long signature files? I mean, there oughta \X/ be a law. If I were in control, .sigs would get cut off if they were
jnmoyne@lbl.gov (Jean-Noel MOYNE) (10/17/90)
An other point you missed is: memory ! Amigas need memory .. but Macs
need much more memory. On a IIsi you need a least 4 megabytes of memory to
do domething, and you're allways running out of memory. Again if you want
multitasking, Apple says: for system 7.0 you'll need at least 4 Mb to run
the system, and more likely 8 Mb to work well.
On the Amiga, the 3000 comes with 2 Mb (yes, I hope I don't say
somerhing wrong), and you can do a lot of things with 2 Mb on a Amiga,
you'll be more likely to upgrade it to 4 Mb if you want to work seriously,
but that's it ! even with the multitasking you really won't need more
unless you do specific applications (like intesive graphics & so, but
you'll need memory as well for the Mac). And here goes the price of the
memory for the 2 machines.
I agree however that Apple made a big step by reducing it's
traditionally too high prices. I agree too that the Amiga really lacks a
high resolution 8 bitplanes card _from COMMODORE_
but at the same price, for multimedia, the Amiga is still ahead the mac.
Too bad not so many people know it ...
JNM
--
These are my own ideas (not LBL's)
" Just make it!", BO in 'BO knows Unix'tj@pons.cis.ohio-state.edu (Todd R Johnson) (10/17/90)
>>Even with lower priced Mac's, Mac software is expensive. So unless your >>a pirate, buying a cheaper system wont help you much. Microsoft Word is much better than any Amiga WYSIWIG word processor. With the educational discount I paid $69. For $75 I bought a program that manages references and automatically formats and inserts them into the Word docuement by scanning the document. With the educational discount MacDraw II costs $45, Canvas $160, Adobe Illustrator $265. Various spreadsheets like Excel, and Wingz are priced at around a $100. My point is that as a student I can get much better software for the Mac at much lower prices than inferior Amiga software. When you compare power you need to look at software. The fastest machine in the world is useless without the right software for the job. My Amiga is excellent for TeX, games, and animation. My Mac is good at doing the things that I need to do almost every day. Sure, the Mac is terrible at multi-tasking, and the hardware is boring, but it does the jobs that I need to do. That's the bottom line. Finally, the Mac is easier to use. For non-techie students, this is a big plus. ---Todd -- Todd R. Johnson tj@cis.ohio-state.edu Laboratory for AI Research The Ohio State University
hamish@waikato.ac.nz (10/17/90)
In article <33538@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > I would like to make some price comparisons between various Amiga > systems and two of the new MAC systems just unveiled today. > > The new MAC LC (actually, it should be called the MAC IILC, because > the only difference between this system and the original MAC II is Nope. It's just a faster MAc plus or SE. Not a II at all. It's also still vapourware, and will be until January 1991. Compare the prices for this then and not now. > the lack of a FPU) gives you a 68020 running at 20Mhz, 2M of RAM, a 40MB ^^^^^ 16Mhz > hard drive, color video, and keyboard for $2500 list. I will build ^^^^^^^^ Don't think so. The pamphlet isn't clear. It definately doesn't say included as does the mouse. > a similar Amiga system using an Amiga 500 as the base. Add $300 for > the monitor, which is included in the Amiga system I will compare it > against. To be fair, I will use list prices. > > Now let's compare the MAC IISI system to a similar Amiga system. > For $3800, the MAC IISI offers standard MAC II color graphics, > an '030 running at 20Mhz, 40MB hard drive, 1.44MB SuperDrive, and > crude mono sound digitizer. + 68882! Also the classic is still limited to 4Mb memory, the LC to 10 Meg and the IIsi is limited to 17Meg. Even the high end IIfx is limited to only 32 Megabytes of memory. > > -MB- -- ============================================================================== | Hamish Marson | Internet hamish@waikato.ac.nz | | Computer Support Person | Phone (071)562889 xt 8181 | | Computer Science Department | Amiga 3000 for ME! | | University of Waikato | | ============================================================================== |Disclaimer: Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the | | finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers | | opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree) | ==============================================================================
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (10/17/90)
In article <33538@nigel.ee.udel.edu> WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > The new MAC LC (actually, it should be called the MAC IILC, because Eh? It _is_ called the "Mac IILC", at least in the blurbs I've read. >Where has the Amiga's competitve color graphics gone? Down the sewer, >I guess. Out of curiosity, what Amiga hard/software feature will you choose to harp upon when Commodore does supply some reasonable upgrade to graphics quality? -- "I feel lightheaded, Sam. I think my | (Steve) rehrauer@apollo.hp.com brain is out of air. But it's kind of | The Apollo Systems Division of a neat feeling..." -- Freelance Police | Hewlett-Packard
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (10/18/90)
In article <84888@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Todd R Johnson <tj@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: |Even with lower priced Mac's, Mac software is expensive. So unless your |a pirate, buying a cheaper system wont help you much. | | Microsoft Word is much better than any Amiga WYSIWIG word |processor. With the educational discount I paid $69. For $75 I |bought a program that manages references and automatically formats and |inserts them into the Word docuement by scanning the document. |With the educational discount MacDraw II costs $45, Canvas $160, Adobe |Illustrator $265. Various spreadsheets like Excel, and Wingz are |priced at around a $100. My point is that as a student I can get much |better software for the Mac at much lower prices than inferior Amiga |software. I've never seen MacDraw, but I wonder how it compares to stuff like Deluxe Paint. I also wonder if Mac has software that is comparable to the Amiga's turbosilver,Disney Animator, JourneyMan,LightWave 3d, Scult, The Art Department. For Word processing I use DME (yep) If I want to do fancy formatting I'll use TeX. Sadly enough, I don't use a Word Processor everyday, and I don't think many people do unless they are Journalists,etc. I use Emacs(Unix) everyday, and DME(Amiga). And if they are WYSIWYG, I don't know what is. | When you compare power you need to look at software. The |fastest machine in the world is useless without the right software for |the job. My Amiga is excellent for TeX, games, and animation. My Mac |is good at doing the things that I need to do almost every day. Sure, |the Mac is terrible at multi-tasking, and the hardware is boring, but |it does the jobs that I need to do. That's the bottom line. For programmers I think the Amiga is much better. (especially if you learn on Unix.) The Amiga's environment is very Unix-like, and the Mac's OS would be very boring. | Finally, the Mac is easier to use. For non-techie students, |this is a big plus. Yep. But a $500 PC system is also easy to use for Word processing, and its much cheaper. I don't think C= needs to worry about Apple. I think Apple needs to worry about the NeXT. We have our niche (multimedia), whereas the NeXT is a direct attack on DeskTop Publish ing(Mac). What happens is remain to be seen. | ---Todd | | | | | | |-- |Todd R. Johnson |tj@cis.ohio-state.edu |Laboratory for AI Research |The Ohio State University -- "NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ "Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/
mueller@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Carl Mueller) (10/18/90)
In article <11419@life.ai.mit.edu> Ray Cromwell <rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu> writes: >In article <84888@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Todd R Johnson <tj@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >|Even with lower priced Mac's, Mac software is expensive. So unless your >|a pirate, buying a cheaper system wont help you much. >|... Microsoft Word... MacDraw II...Canvas... Adobe Illustrator... >|... Excel... Wingz...[stuff deleted here, including quoted prices] >|... My point is that as a student I can get much >|better software for the Mac at much lower prices than inferior Amiga >|software. > > I've never seen MacDraw, but I wonder how it compares to stuff like >Deluxe Paint. I also wonder if Mac has software that is comparable to >the Amiga's turbosilver,Disney Animator, JourneyMan,LightWave 3d, >Scult, The Art Department. AAAAAACKK!! That's not what MacDraw does! Please don't advertise your ignorance to the whole net! (pause while I regain control) Sorry, I didn't mean to have my flame-throw on high like that! MacDraw is an object oriented drawing program. You draw using primitives such as lines, boxes, circles, arcs, smoothed polygons, etc. Not PIXELS! When you print a MacDraw document, it prints the primitives in the highest resolution the printer can handle. So even though the circle appears in 72 dpi on the screen, it prints at 300 dpi on the printer, and looks perfectly round. It's basically a CAD program, though most of the users aren't engineers. They're people who want to put nice figures into reports and presentations. You see, one of the Mac's prime advantages over Amiga and PCs is that I can take these object-oriented figures and paste them directly into my word-processor document. I don't think Amiga IFF includes this format (I don't know, does it?). As the original poster stated, the Mac's primary advantage over the Amiga is software. Not just applications, but its operating system as well. They put in a lot of effort to achieve the goal of user friendliness, and did pretty well. The Amiga's operating system is a very good technical achievement (whereas the Macs is nothing special - no multitasking, etc.), but as far as "Joe User" is concerned, he could really care less HOW it works. Gee, I could start making a list of things where the Mac has advantages over the Amiga (standard file requestors; icons that don't take forever to appear and stay where they're put without specifically being told; oops! I'm starting!), but that would make me just like Marc Barrett! > For Word processing I use DME (yep) If I want to do fancy formatting >I'll use TeX. Sadly enough, I don't use a Word Processor everyday, >and I don't think many people do unless they are Journalists,etc. >I use Emacs(Unix) everyday, and DME(Amiga). And if they are WYSIWYG, >I don't know what is. Did you mean "if they aren't WYSIWIG"? They certainly aren't. And if you think the average user would prefer using TeX over something like MacWrite I'd have to laugh my head off! TeX certainly offers a lot of power, but you have to learn a whole new language before you can begin to use it! Indeed one needs to learn to use MacWrite as well, but the difference in learning curves is like day and night. As for Emacs, I use it everday also. In fact, I'm using it right now. I like Emacs, but it's NOT a word processor. It's a text editor. There IS a difference. Will Emacs do subscripts, different point type size, variable line spacing, etc. and show you interactively on screen what the printed page will look like? Can you paste figures into Emacs? (all this applies to DME as well.) >| When you compare power you need to look at software. The >|fastest machine in the world is useless without the right software for >|the job. My Amiga is excellent for TeX, games, and animation. My Mac >|is good at doing the things that I need to do almost every day. Sure, >|the Mac is terrible at multi-tasking, and the hardware is boring, but >|it does the jobs that I need to do. That's the bottom line. It does what the 'average user' expects, and does it pretty well. Remember, it's the computer made for idiots. And there are hordes of idiots, uhh, I mean 'average people' out there buying computers. (I guess I sound a bit elitist here. Sorry about that!) > For programmers I think the Amiga is much better. (especially if >you learn on Unix.) The Amiga's environment is very Unix-like, >and the Mac's OS would be very boring. I agree. But you won't make a lot of money if you only sell computers to programmers (at least, not easily). >| Finally, the Mac is easier to use. For non-techie students, >|this is a big plus. > > Yep. But a $500 PC system is also easy to use for Word processing, >and its much cheaper. I don't think C= needs to worry about Apple. >I think Apple needs to worry about the NeXT. We have our niche >(multimedia), whereas the NeXT is a direct attack on DeskTop Publish >ing(Mac). What happens is remain to be seen. Who Commodore needs to worry about depends upon whom they're trying to sell computer to. Commodore's market overlaps with the PC's, Mac's, and Next's. I get really quite ill whenever I see people who state that better than NTSC video is unnecessary for the Amiga since the video people don't need it. Fact is, not only video people use the Amiga. Programmers do to, and we who are used to workstation displays with megapixels and 8 bits/pixel feel really cramped when working with a 80x24 display. Do you have any idea how small a 320x200 image looks when viewed on a display that's 1024x800 or larger? Gad! I seem to have 'gone off the handle' again. Let me come back down to earth and make a few things clear so I won't get flamed too badly. First of all, I like the Amiga very much. I have an A500 and I plan to get a 3000 when I can afford it. I like the principles embodied in the computer and I generally like Commodore and its pricing policies. On the other hand, I despise Apple for gouging its buyers ever since they came out with the Apple II back in 1978(?). I want Commodore to do really well, so that a lot of us can afford well-thought-out computers. I want Apple to do okay so that there is competition in the market, especially against IBM and the clone horde. What _I_ feel is Commodores most pressing need is some operating system standards for 1) add-on hardware such as video boards 2) object oriented data formats (like PICT for the Mac) (if this doesn't exist already) 3) hmmm... let's see, printers and I/O devices are already handled fairly well; I can't really think of anything else right now. Heck, I just remembered another peeve. Why oh WHY? on the 3000 was there not enough memory put into the deinterlacer to support the Super-Hires mode? It's SO BOGUS! You have all these video modes which you can display on a 30 khz monitor EXCEPT for Super-Hires! You need a multi-sync just for this one mode. What's so bad about that, you may ask, given that multisyncs don't cost so much now? What's so bad is that when future video modes appear that require a 60 khz monitor (the ULowell board?) you won't be able to find a monitor that can sync from 15-60 khz to display every mode! There might be some monitors like that, but I've not seen any. Most multisyncs go from 15-35 khz _OR_ 30-60 khz. Could somebody prove me wrong and point out an affordable monitor that is an exception to this rule? Wow, I didn't expect to write so much! But I guess I just had to let the steam off sometime.... >| ---Todd >|-- >|Todd R. Johnson >|tj@cis.ohio-state.edu >|Laboratory for AI Research >|The Ohio State University >-- >"NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, >are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null >Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ >"Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/ -Carl (mueller@cs.unc.edu)
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (10/19/90)
| | I've never seen MacDraw, but I wonder how it compares to stuff like ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Deluxe Paint. I also wonder if Mac has software that is comparable to |the Amiga's turbosilver,Disney Animator, JourneyMan,LightWave 3d, |Scult, The Art Department. | |AAAAAACKK!! That's not what MacDraw does! Please don't advertise |your ignorance to the whole net! (pause while I regain control) |Sorry, I didn't mean to have my flame-throw on high like that! I have no problem admitting ignorance, since thats the only way it can be cured, but since I don't own a Mac, or Mac software, how am I supposed to know what it is. |MacDraw is an object oriented drawing program. You draw using primitives |such as lines, boxes, circles, arcs, smoothed polygons, etc. Not PIXELS! |When you print a MacDraw document, it prints the primitives in the highest |resolution the printer can handle. So even though the circle appears in |72 dpi on the screen, it prints at 300 dpi on the printer, and looks |perfectly round. Big deal. GEOS on my C64 used to do this. I do beleive AmigaVision has an object oriented editor in it. |It's basically a CAD program, though most of the users aren't engineers. |They're people who want to put nice figures into reports and presentations. |You see, one of the Mac's prime advantages over Amiga and PCs is that |I can take these object-oriented figures and paste them directly into my |word-processor document. I don't think Amiga IFF includes this format |(I don't know, does it?). Well, on the Amiga you can solid-model render an object, and save it as IFF ILBM then include it into word processors that support brushes. In fact, I remember a local guy who took 24bit pictures, processed them throught the art Department and used them in Professional Page. And there is an IFF vector/object format,althought I don't know if its official, there was a file describing its format on Bix. |As the original poster stated, the Mac's primary advantage over the |Amiga is software. Not just applications, but its operating system |as well. They put in a lot of effort to achieve the goal of user |friendliness, and did pretty well. The Amiga's operating system is |a very good technical achievement (whereas the Macs is nothing |special - no multitasking, etc.), but as far as "Joe User" is concerned, |he could really care less HOW it works. | |Gee, I could start making a list of things where the Mac has advantages |over the Amiga (standard file requestors; icons that don't take forever |to appear and stay where they're put without specifically being told; |oops! I'm starting!), but that would make me just like Marc Barrett! Have you seen 2.0? There is a standard file requester. And on 1.3, a large majority of people used the Arp requester. And by your experience, I can tell you don't own a harddrive. On an A3000/2000 with a harddrive icons pop up rather quickly. I still am waiting for you to point out something the MacOS has better than the Amiga besides cosmetics! (by the way, The Mac doesn't have pull down screens, or virtual sprites, or dual playfields, or page-flipping, or a shell(builtin) or Arexx(heh), or copper lists! :-)) | For Word processing I use DME (yep) If I want to do fancy formatting |I'll use TeX. Sadly enough, I don't use a Word Processor everyday, |and I don't think many people do unless they are Journalists,etc. |I use Emacs(Unix) everyday, and DME(Amiga). And if they are WYSIWYG, |I don't know what is. | |Did you mean "if they aren't WYSIWIG"? They certainly aren't. And |if you think the average user would prefer using TeX over something |like MacWrite I'd have to laugh my head off! TeX certainly offers |a lot of power, but you have to learn a whole new language before you |can begin to use it! Indeed one needs to learn to use MacWrite as |well, but the difference in learning curves is like day and night. | |As for Emacs, I use it everday also. In fact, I'm using it right |now. I like Emacs, but it's NOT a word processor. It's a text |editor. There IS a difference. Will Emacs do subscripts, different |point type size, variable line spacing, etc. and show you interactively |on screen what the printed page will look like? Can you paste figures |into Emacs? (all this applies to DME as well.) Emacs and DME are WYSIWYG. I wasn't talking about TeX. (TeX is what you think you'll get will be nicely formatted) And pasting graphics is not what defines a wordprocessor. a Text editor is a subgroup in the family of word processors. (It processes words) and primitive word processors years ago like on CPM etc looked like the Text editors of today. All those features that you listed for word processors are definitions of what todays advanced WYSIWIG WP's have in them. Are you trying to tell me that a WOrd Processor that is not WYSIWYG is not a Word Processor? || When you compare power you need to look at software. The ||fastest machine in the world is useless without the right software for ||the job. My Amiga is excellent for TeX, games, and animation. My Mac ||is good at doing the things that I need to do almost every day. Sure, ||the Mac is terrible at multi-tasking, and the hardware is boring, but ||it does the jobs that I need to do. That's the bottom line. The above inclusion is not mine. It was from someone else who I included. |It does what the 'average user' expects, and does it pretty well. |Remember, it's the computer made for idiots. And there are hordes |of idiots, uhh, I mean 'average people' out there buying computers. |(I guess I sound a bit elitist here. Sorry about that!) Good. Don't turn my amiga into no damn idiot computer! The Amiga always has been 'the computer for the creative mind.' 5 years ago when the A1000 was lightyears above any other computer. (4096 colors vs 16 colors, Multitasking,etc) none of the idiots wanted it. Only the power users knew where the real power was and they bought A1000s. Now after 5 years the market is FINALLY catching up and in some aspects passing us (color). || Finally, the Mac is easier to use. For non-techie students, ||this is a big plus. | | Yep. But a $500 PC system is also easy to use for Word processing, |and its much cheaper. I don't think C= needs to worry about Apple. |I think Apple needs to worry about the NeXT. We have our niche |(multimedia), whereas the NeXT is a direct attack on DeskTop Publish |ing(Mac). What happens is remain to be seen. | |Who Commodore needs to worry about depends upon whom they're trying to |sell computer to. Commodore's market overlaps with the PC's, Mac's, |and Next's. I get really quite ill whenever I see people who state |that better than NTSC video is unnecessary for the Amiga since the |video people don't need it. Fact is, not only video people use the |Amiga. Programmers do to, and we who are used to workstation displays |with megapixels and 8 bits/pixel feel really cramped when working with |a 80x24 display. Do you have any idea how small a 320x200 image looks |when viewed on a display that's 1024x800 or larger? And with those mega-pixel workstation displays comes incredibly slow interface updating time. Intuition is much faster than most workstation displays i've seen. Unless a huge portion of the workstation CPU time is devoted to the interface (e.g. NeXT) |Gad! I seem to have 'gone off the handle' again. Let me come back down |to earth and make a few things clear so I won't get flamed too badly. | |First of all, I like the Amiga very much. I have an A500 and I plan |to get a 3000 when I can afford it. I like the principles embodied |in the computer and I generally like Commodore and its pricing policies. |On the other hand, I despise Apple for gouging its buyers ever since |they came out with the Apple II back in 1978(?). I want Commodore to |do really well, so that a lot of us can afford well-thought-out |computers. I want Apple to do okay so that there is competition in |the market, especially against IBM and the clone horde. | |What _I_ feel is Commodores most pressing need is some operating |system standards for 1) add-on hardware such as video boards 2) object |oriented data formats (like PICT for the Mac) (if this doesn't exist |already) 3) hmmm... let's see, printers and I/O devices are already |handled fairly well; I can't really think of anything else right now. PLEADING REQUEST: Could people PLEASE stop saying 'I want some add on video boards.' If you haven't heard the rumors or seen the products of all the video boards being developed then I suggest you do. (e.g.HAM-E, DCTV, Ulowell, G300, M.A.S.T.'s, Toaster, Firecracker,etc) |Heck, I just remembered another peeve. Why oh WHY? on the 3000 was |there not enough memory put into the deinterlacer to support the |Super-Hires mode? It's SO BOGUS! You have all these video modes |which you can display on a 30 khz monitor EXCEPT for Super-Hires! |You need a multi-sync just for this one mode. What's so bad about |that, you may ask, given that multisyncs don't cost so much now? |What's so bad is that when future video modes appear that require |a 60 khz monitor (the ULowell board?) you won't be able to find |a monitor that can sync from 15-60 khz to display every mode! |There might be some monitors like that, but I've not seen any. |Most multisyncs go from 15-35 khz _OR_ 30-60 khz. Could somebody |prove me wrong and point out an affordable monitor that is an |exception to this rule? Its because Super-Hires is a part of the ECS Denise which outputs pixels twice as fast. To make the deinterlacer work with the Productivety modes the deinterlacer would have to oversample (2x) and use faster ram. The end affect is the deinterlacer sees every other pixel. I think Commodore decided on a cheaper A3000 so they didn't make the Display Enhancer oversample. (I could be wrong about all this) |Wow, I didn't expect to write so much! But I guess I just had to |let the steam off sometime.... -- "NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ "Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/
dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com (Eric Dittman) (10/19/90)
In article <1999.271c7c3e@waikato.ac.nz>, hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes: > Even the high end IIfx is limited to only 32 Megabytes of memory. With 4MB SIMMs. I believe the IIfx can have 128MB of memory (on the motherboard) with 16MB SIMMs (when available). Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/19/90)
In article <33538@nigel.ee.udel.edu> WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > I would like to make some price comparisons between various Amiga > systems and two of the new MAC systems just unveiled today. Since Apple still doesn't ship a machine with the same capability as a stock Amiga 1000 with a reasonable 2 Meg expansion memory, why bother? All the horsepower in the world won't make up for crummy system software. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
Michael.Witbrock@CS.CMU.EDU (10/20/90)
(this is a followup to an article about object oriented drawing vs bitmapped drawing etc) If people are looking for a draw program, I can heartily recomment professional draw v2.0 In my opinion, it is considerably better than macdraw2.0 (I've used both extensively), it's more powerful, it's faster, and its user interface is more intuitive. [but its EPSF files are too complicated for the laserwriter I try to print them on]. It's about as good as Adobe Illustrator. It is also my opinion that GoldDisk should register a structured drawing IFF as soon as possible (even PICT would be ok (athough it's a really REALLY weak format (no splines except in comments [read program specific kludges]). michael (who wants to run 2.0 on his 2000 soon, please).
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (10/20/90)
In article <16885@thorin.cs.unc.edu> mueller@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Carl Mueller) writes: >Gee, I could start making a list of things where the Mac has advantages >over the Amiga (standard file requestors; icons that don't take forever >to appear and stay where they're put without specifically being told; >oops! I'm starting!), but that would make me just like Marc Barrett! 1) AmigaDOS 2.0 HAS standard file requesters (that look and work better than Mac file requesters), along with font requesters and standard gadget libraries that make it easy to use and enhance all of the above in a standardized manor. Please don't compare outdated operating systems like AmigaDOS 1.x to other products. That would be like comparing Unix to CP/M. AmigaDOS 1.x is no longer supported, and even though (most) people are still using it, It is certain that future machines will come with 2.0. 2) I (and many other people) do not consider icons staying where you drop them without telling them to to be a feature. I frequently drag an icon out of the way of something else, and would not like to have that position remembered unless I tell it to. AmigaDOS 2.0 even has a "snapshot all" option that will remember the location of all the icons in a window and the window itself. 3) My icons never took a long time to load, as I never had more than a few files in any directory that wan't intended for workbench use. If you tried to keep 300 files in one directory on a Mac I think you would find the directory quite slow. I could come up with many problems that the Mac has, like: Files that get stuck in your system file, and require an editor to expunge and gobble up memory whether you use them or not (like fonts), like the number of fonts limitation, like needing to edit your system file to add more fonts (oops, got to stop MultiFinder to change that file again). Like no real multitasking, like... Dave >Remember, it's the computer made for idiots. And there are hordes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >of idiots, uhh, I mean 'average people' out there buying computers. >(I guess I sound a bit elitist here. Sorry about that!) (I just liked that line :-)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/23/90)
In article <16885@thorin.cs.unc.edu> mueller@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Carl Mueller) writes: >Heck, I just remembered another peeve. Why oh WHY? on the 3000 was >there not enough memory put into the deinterlacer to support the >Super-Hires mode? There are a few issues associated with that device. First off, the memory consideration isn't trivial; if you have to support a field that's twice the size of the currently supported fields, that would double an already pricey device. Secondly is the more technical problem of dealing with the "super hires" display. All of the modes that the Amber chips de-interlaces are 70ns pixel modes -- it bypasses all of the 35ns pixel modes, which include the 1200 x 200/400 and the 640 x 400/480/512/960/whatever "productivity" modes. Such a conversion would be much more difficult if it was required to sample these 35ns pixels as well as the 70ns pixels. I don't know all the technical issues involved, but that could significantly increase the cost of the device. >You need a multi-sync just for this one mode. You really need a multi-sync for that mode anyway, a true VGA monitor may not deal at all well with 1200 pixels in a 1200x400 noninterlaced display, since in order to de-interlace something, you have double the horizontal rate. So if an interlaced 1200x400 display at 60Hz vertical referesh uses 35ns pixels, a de-interlaced 1200x400 display would generate 17.5ns pixels. I really don't know what a typical VGA-only monitor would do with that. And VGA monitors don't necessarily support interlace, which would also rule out using the 640 x 960 interlaced display mode. >-Carl (mueller@cs.unc.edu) -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/23/90)
In-Reply-To: message from dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Whether the Mac ][ can access 32Mb or 128Mb of RAM is imaterial until Sys7 comes out for them...'till then anything above 8Mb doesn't do'em too much good (unless they're using A/UX). BTW, anyone know if the ZIP sockets on the A3000 motherboard'll accept higher density chips? Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/24/90)
In article <5203@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com >BTW, anyone know if the ZIP sockets on the A3000 motherboard'll accept higher >density chips? No, the limit on that pinout is the 4MB device, which gives the total of 16MB Fast RAM on the motherboard. There is OS support for expansion memory in the Coprocessor slot and expansion bus. A good Zorro III memory will probably run better than 80% the speed of on-board memory. And there's enough address space reserved for most needs: 1.75GigaBytes. >Sean -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (10/25/90)
What high density? The highest packed chips you'll commonly find is 1x4 megabit. -Joseph Hillenburg UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP