BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) (03/27/90)
Iowa State just opened up a fancy new MAC lab, and I have been using one of their ][cx systems since it opened. I am very impressed with this system. The multitasking is much better than I had been told [I have been fed a lot of bull about MAC multitasking from fellow Amiga users] the system is very easy-to-use, and the graphics just plain look GREAT. Let's face it: the Amiga, the way it currently is, is in depserately in need of a total facelift. The Amiga looks kludgy, feels kludgy, and just plain IS kludgy. Everything about the Amiga looks and feels kludgy. The Amiga suffers from too much UNIX-itis kludginess, and far too little professionalism. The Amiga's interlaced graphics is alo a sore spot. Without a flicker-fixer, the Amiga's graphics are about as pleasing to the eye as a kick in the face is pleasing to the head. On the other hand, the MAC looks professional, feels professional, and is professional to the bone. Everything is professional, from the screen graphics [in which a screen graphics is a constant exact point size in height and width] to the fonts [which are drawn in accordance to point size and not pixel size like on the Amiga] and to the graphical user-interface [all windows have shadows, the background screens are always pattern-dithered, if multiple icons and menu-selected the resulting windows are neatly stacked with each one just up&left of the one in front of it, etc...]. The graphics capabilities adhere neatly to this professionalism. Although the ][cx, in spite of its speed, does not have near the animation capbility of the Amiga, I have found that 95% of operations use static graphics, anyway. This is why those $150 SuperVGA cards for the IBM [with 1024x768x256-color graphics -- my upstairs neighbor did recently pick up one of these for $150], which can take up to half a second to re-draw the screen, are still very popular. The MAC's ability to display 256 colors out of 16 Million makes its graphics look all the more professional. There are also other areas which the Amiga can't even touch. Such as built-in networking on ALL MAC models [very, very important in an environment such as a lab or classroom. This is one of the many reasons why Apple sells 10 million times more computers to schools and colleges than Commodore]. It has been said that an Amiga can run MAC software, but a MAC can't run Amiga software. This is true, but I don't see why any MAC user would want to run Amiga software. There is much more MAC software available than Amiga software. There is very little scientific available for the Amiga, and tons available for the MAC. Networking software for the Amiga is virtually nonexistant, and so on. If Mathematica was available for the Amiga, I would purchase it, but it isn't available for the Amiga. I can see why. Most software developers that spend money on the Amiga lose money on it. This is why so many Amiga developers have gone under recently. Lately, it has been my oppinion that what ails the Amiga is Commodore's total lack of direction with it until recently. I am beginning to see that this is not entirely the case. What ails the Amiga is the Amiga itself.
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/27/90)
In article <15049@snow-white.udel.EDU> BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:
[lots of the usual stuff about how much the Amiga sucks deleted]
Seems you're well on your way to winning the Whiner of the Month Award. Rabid
Amiga-nay-sayers are as pathetic to listen to as rabid Amiga-zealots. If you
feel the urge to constantly compare the Amiga and the Mac, try to at least be
objective about it, and try *constructive* criticism rather than criticism for
its own sake. Apple has not achieved Computing Perfection, and the Amiga is
not wallowing in mediocrity. Nor is the reverse true. I will be the first to
admit there are areas where the Amiga needs improvement, and I have said so
on many occasions. But when I do, it's accompanied by thoughts on what we
can do, not "WAAAAAHHHHH!! Their computer looks nicer than ours!" moaning.
Please...the Amiga gets maligned enough by people ignorant of its capabilities.
We owe it to ourselves, at least, to be objective in discussing it.
-Chris
--
Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832
4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu
WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences,
900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo EmersonR38@psuvm.psu.edu (Marc Rifkin) (03/27/90)
All that you mentioned (in previous article) are how professional the
"look" and "feel" are of the MAC. Granted the Amiga is kludgy, but
there is a FlickerFixer, there are framebuffers (with ALL 16 million colors),
there are networking boards, and more. What you forgot is that the
price is also "professional." That fact seems to be of importance to
students, who don't have as much money as do the Universities they attend.
Many companies feel "money is no object" or "more is better"- that is
just bull****, a lousy way to justify an unreasonably high price for
the SAME performace you could get with an Amiga with the right add-ons.
It doesn't matter if you have to add extras, or if the workbench is "kludgy"
- what matters is the bottom line: the quality of work you do.
HOWEVER... if the Amiga WERE more professional, and more orginal I might
add (CBM PLEEEZE don't play "match everyone else", play "exceed everyone
else"), it would sell more and have a higher image that it already does.
But as is, it is not as bad as the Mac makes it look.
I had no intention to flame the author of the previous article. I was just
waiting for the context to say what was on my mind.
Marc Rifkin R38@PSUVM
Penn State Visual Engineering Lab
Home -> 636 E. College Ave. #302
State College, Pa. 16801
(814) 867-4837swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (03/28/90)
In article <15049@snow-white.udel.EDU> BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: [...] > Lately, it has been my oppinion that what ails the Amiga is >Commodore's total lack of direction with it until recently. I >am beginning to see that this is not entirely the case. What >ails the Amiga is the Amiga itself. Marc, you will find a very receptive audience for your opinions on Amigas in comp.sys.mac Why don't you take it there? We are tired of your whining. They (mac users) will encourage you. All you will accomplish here is more flame wars. Is that your intention? We are happy with our Amigas, that is why many of us are upgrading. If you think Amigas suck that is fine, you are welcome to your opinion. But we are all getting tired of hearing about it. -- --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
armhold@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) (03/28/90)
In article <15049@snow-white.udel.EDU> BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > Iowa State just opened up a fancy new MAC lab, and I have been using > one of their ][cx systems since it opened. I am very impressed with this > system. The multitasking is much better than I had been told [I have > been fed a lot of bull about MAC multitasking from fellow Amiga users] Oh please. Don't make me laugh. I can't count the number of times a confused user has come to me asking why their Mac IIcx has crashed, only to have me say to them "turn off Multifinder." -George
mclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) (03/28/90)
[Bear with me, folks, this is kind of long. But I speak as one who uses both a Mac and an Amiga regularly.] BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: [heavily paraphrased] >MAC multitasking isn't as bad as Amiga users make it out to be >Amiga's graphics are kludgy, Mac's are professional >Mac has better font support >built-in networking on the Mac makes it the school choice >more software available for Mac The first and third points are mainly true; the others are either open invitations to Yet Another "My Computer is Better" flame war or honest misconceptions by someone who hasn't used both machines for a couple of years. In an effort to avoid the former, I'll assume the latter. I've used Macs for about 4 years now, mainly for word processing (I'm a tech writer). I bought an Amiga 500 about 2 years ago, even though I use a Mac every day and like it. A Multitasking Comparison I use a IIcx at work with 5 Meg RAM & a fast 40Meg Sony hard drive. Keeping in mind that the IIcx has a 68030 running at (16? 17?) Mhz, it multitasks about as smoothly as my Amiga 500 with a stock 68000 (7.16 Mhz). A plain Mac II, using a 68020, doesn't multitask as well as my 500. MultiFinder starts showing its limitations while printing. Every Mac/MultiFinder system I've used while printing in the background turns the mouse pointer into a "guess where it's going to end up" video game -- the pointer jerks all over the screen. I don't have that problem with my Amiga. The Mac OS was not designed for multitasking; it is to the credit of Apple's developers that MultiFinder works as well as it does. However, as with the bumblebee, anything with enough horsepower behind it can fly. The IIcx has LOTS of horsepower. Let's draw an analogy. The Mac is like an pre-Embargo Buick Electra. Nice car, very comfortable to drive, and in dire need of a big V8 motor to get it moving. On the other hand, the Amiga is more like a NASCAR stock car. It ain't supposed to look pretty, but it goes faster and corners better, even with a smaller engine. "Kludgey" Amiga Graphics vs. "Professional" Mac Graphics Out of the box, Amiga's Workbench isn't much to look at, sure. But while you're waiting for V1.4, which is supposed to include a MUCH nicer-looking interface, you can customize the current system for little or no money: - I've seen a PD program called "NewLook" which replaces the close box, the drag bar, and the depth, resizing, and arrow gadgets. The result is quite pleasant, even on a non-interlaced screen. - Another PD program, "DropShadow," gives you that shadowed-window look you covet. - A third PD program, "MacGAG," adds that "exploding/imploding outline" when you open or close a window. - There are many different fonts available to replace the standard system (Topaz) font. - A shareware program by Eric Lavitsky (what's it called, Eric? I just archived it yesterday) gives you a patterned background or an IFF picture in the background. The pattern or picture is covered by any open windows. I don't use any of those; I don't feel the need. I have tried them all though, and they *do* work. Interlace flicker can be a problem. However, a 2500/30 with a Flicker-Fixer and a multisync monitor still costs less than a IIcx, even with a monochrome screen on the CX. Other alternatives: use a long-persistance monitor, or wait for the new Denise chip & version 1.4, which will give you a 400+ line non-interlaced display with a multisync monitor. Fonts You didn't mention that the Mac automatically resizes a font if the size you select is not installed already. This is one place where the Mac really has an advantage. Version 1.4 of the Amiga system will support outline fonts (or at least have "hooks" for them), which is equivalent to the (forthcoming) Mac system 7.0, or a Mac running Adobe Type Manager. In my opinion, point vs. pixel size isn't really an issue outside of page layout programs, and the Amiga programs also use point size to select fonts. Networking You said that built-in networking "is one reason that Macs outsell Amigas in schools/colleges." Well, IBM sells more computers to colleges than Apple, and PCs don't have built-in networking. Apple (and IBM) have more *widely-known* networking hardware. (Not to say I don't love AppleTalk; it's everything a LAN should be except fast.) There *are* Amiga LAN cards; they're just not widely marketed. A digression: the real reason Apple sells lots of computers into schools and colleges is the deep discount over the inflated retail prices. Commodore has just started such a discount plan, so Apple may find itself with some competition before too long. Apple cut the student discount prices 20% the day after CBM announced their discount program -- a coincidence? Software Availability Summary: the Mac has been around longer, and has had more support from Apple. It also helps to have a captive software house (Claris), even if they've been spun off. Overall, you can find *a* piece of software for either machine for most applications. There's a wider choice of applications available for the Mac. For example, you mentioned Mathamatica. A competitive product called "Maple" is available for the Amiga. How much video/animation software do you see for the Mac? Each machine fills different niche markets -- the sharp displays and graphics on the Mac have made it a nice office machine. The Amiga's NTSC-compatible video makes it a nice studio machine. >Most software developers that spend money on the Amiga lose >money on it. This is why so many Amiga developers have gone under ["When you want to flame somebody, go get a cup of coffee or something, take a deep breath, and act rational." - paraphrased from the new user's postings] Several *magazines* have gone under, but I don't recall hearing of "many" *developers* going under recently. New Amiga developers are starting up all the time. Those who provide a decent level of customer support do well enough, from what I've seen. So Lotus and Microsoft don't have any products out for the Amiga. That may be changing.... Some will tell you that having no Microsoft products for the Amiga is a feature rather than a bug. Someone flames Microsoft almost every day in comp.sys.mac for bugs or programming guideline violations. I've rambled on long enough. I hope this sheds more light than heat. -- F R E E L I T H U A N I A Larry Kollar UUCP ...!{gatech,uunet}!dcatla!mclek VoiceMail:One 2670
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/28/90)
In article <Mar.27.12.57.47.1990.10221@topaz.rutgers.edu> armhold@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) writes: >In article <15049@snow-white.udel.EDU> BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > >> Iowa State just opened up a fancy new MAC lab, and I have been using >> one of their ][cx systems since it opened. I am very impressed with this >> system. The multitasking is much better than I had been told [I have >> been fed a lot of bull about MAC multitasking from fellow Amiga users] > >Oh please. Don't make me laugh. I can't count the number of times a >confused user has come to me asking why their Mac IIcx has crashed, >only to have me say to them "turn off Multifinder." > >-George There have been a lot of exaggerations on how good/bad multifinder is. Here is my appraisal: Group 1) Programs that don't work under multifinder, period: about 25% of software. Some tell you, some just crash. Group 2) Programs that run under multifinder, but don't let you switch to another window: about 10% of software. Group 3) Programs that will work under multifinder, but not multitask, only let you switch processes: about 60% of software. Group 4) Programs that do true multitasking under multifinder: about 5% of software. Those last 5%, it should be known, do not multitask as well as on an Amiga. The foreground process always gets the vast amount of time, the programs are more difficult to write than others, and there is no interprocess communication. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu "If Commodore had to market sushi they'd call it `raw cold fish'" -- The Bandito, inevitably stolen from someone else
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/28/90)
In article <90086.011739R38@psuvm.psu.edu>, R38@psuvm.psu.edu (Marc Rifkin) writes: > All that you mentioned (in previous article) are how professional the > "look" and "feel" are of the MAC. That impression does have an effect on potential buyers, though. > Granted the Amiga is kludgy, but there is a FlickerFixer, there are > framebuffers (with ALL 16 million colors), there are networking boards, and more. Do they come standard? No? > What you forgot is that the price is also "professional." How much does a 2000 equivalently set up cost? Including equivalent software, networking,... The price gap is going to narrow. > That fact seems to be of importance to > students, who don't have as much money as do the Universities they attend. > Many companies feel "money is no object" or "more is better"- that is > just bull****, a lousy way to justify an unreasonably high price for > the SAME performace you could get with an Amiga with the right add-ons. The add-ons bring the price up, though, don't they? > It doesn't matter if you have to add extras, or if the workbench is "kludgy" > - what matters is the bottom line: the quality of work you do. The worker is more important than the tool, but the work you can do is affected by the tools you have available to do the work. > HOWEVER... if the Amiga WERE more professional, and more orginal I might > add (CBM PLEEEZE don't play "match everyone else", play "exceed everyone > else"), it would sell more and have a higher image that it already does. > But as is, it is not as bad as the Mac makes it look. CBM needs to do more with the Amiga. They realy haven't improved that much on the original version in the last five years, at least from the viewpoint of the potential buyer. It's beginning to show its age. ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (03/28/90)
Marc, Fine.. sell your Amiga, buy a Mac II (IF you can afford it) and then unsubscribe from Comp.Sys.Amiga.XXX. And as Karl said... 'Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!' - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/28/90)
In article <35685@dcatla.UUCP> mclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) writes: >[Bear with me, folks, this is kind of long. But I speak as one who uses both >a Mac and an Amiga regularly.] > >Several *magazines* have gone under, but I don't recall hearing of "many" >*developers* going under recently. New Amiga developers are starting up >all the time. Those who provide a decent level of customer support do >well enough, from what I've seen. There have been several losses recently, such as CMI and C Ltd. However, it is my understanding that all CMI products and most C Ltd. products have been picked up. The other company was the software company Aegis, and Oxxi picked up all their products. The problem is that home grown companies have a hard time making it. Some do, some don't. They may have a good product but poor management, in which case they will go under and someone else will buy the product. In Magazines, we had over 10 magazines dedicated to the Amiga if memory serves. There are barely that many for the Macintosh. The losses were appropriate. Of course, I subscribed to three of the downed mags, but that's another issue... > F R E E L I T H U A N I A >Larry Kollar UUCP ...!{gatech,uunet}!dcatla!mclek VoiceMail:One 2670 -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu "If Commodore had to market sushi they'd call it `raw cold fish'" -- The Bandito, inevitably stolen from someone else
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/28/90)
In article <133558@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >CBM needs to do more with the Amiga. They realy haven't improved that >much on the original version in the last five years, at least from the >viewpoint of the potential buyer. It's beginning to show its age. Let me point out that (not including the IIfx), the Mac has no design advantages over the Amiga. The old systems were all limited in slots, which is good for some and bad for others (the c in cx and ci is for compact, Apple stopped the II and IIx). The bus on all the prior Macs runs at only 8 or 10MHz, if I remember correctly. It was my understanding that even the IIfx has a NuBus on it which is still inherently slow. The only thing the pre-fx Macs had over the Amiga was look, in most people's opinion. Now the fx is announced, and not released, and not likely to be shipped for a while, and everyone is flipping out. Apple has been notorious for problems with the new II line machines, including problems requiring motherboard swaps to fix compatibility problems with initial releases. Have you, or anyone else, actually USED the IIfx. Some have seen it demonstrated by Applers, but have you used your software and hardware on it to see if it works? It is entirely possible that the A3000 will be out before the Mac IIfx is available. All the rumors are saying the same things (which lends them some credibility): built-in flicker fixer (a CBM version), new Denise, sleeker look, and 1.4 with all its advantages. When that comes out, I don't see a single advantage in the Apple world, except possibly if the 3000 isn't 40MHz. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu "If Commodore had to market sushi they'd call it `raw cold fish'" -- The Bandito, inevitably stolen from someone else
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (03/28/90)
>Item: 6237 by *Masked* at cunyvm.cuny.edu >Author: [Marc Barrett] > Subj: MAC ][cx appraisal [ reader beware -- sanity will no doubt be cast away ] Well, Marc , before we start this , I have an idea for the net as a whole. Can we buffer this one and for all and just put the whole MAC / AMIGA discussion in the monthly posting ??? > Iowa State just opened up a fancy new MAC lab, and I have been using Great. >one of their ][cx systems since it opened. I am very impressed with this >system. The multitasking is much better than I had been told [I have >been fed a lot of bull about MAC multitasking from fellow Amiga users] And how many DIFFERENT programs have you used with it ??? It is true that most programs will run reasonably well under MULTIFINDER. (not I say this in the same way AmigaDos 1.0 ran reasonably well). >the system is very easy-to-use, and the graphics just plain look GREAT. The system is easy to use true. Then again, workbench gives you all the same abilities. If you don't want the CLI , don't use it. The user interface graphics do look good. On the other hand , I have changed the way the workbench looks anyway so mine looks ok too. > Let's face it: the Amiga, the way it currently is, is in depserately >in need of a total facelift. The Amiga looks kludgy, feels kludgy, and >just plain IS kludgy. Everything about the Amiga looks and feels >kludgy. The Amiga suffers from too much UNIX-itis kludginess, and far Actually , this is not really MAC/AMIGA now , this is POWER_USER/USER . There are things you can do on an Amiga (regarding the OS only for a minute) that can't be done on a MAC. Period. >too little professionalism. The Amiga's interlaced graphics is alo >a sore spot. Without a flicker-fixer, the Amiga's graphics are Actually , about 2 years ago I got a "FlickerMaster" , 4 peices of velcro , a polorizer and POOF , I havent worried about flicker since. (of course , it never got to me much.) >screen graphics [in which a screen graphics is a constant exact point >size in height and width] to the fonts [which are drawn in accordance >to point size and not pixel size like on the Amiga] and to the graphical Hmmm.. I will debate that 1:1 screen ratio. Now that macs can use MultiSync monitors the actual PIXELS should be a rectangular as everyone else's right ? >user-interface [all windows have shadows, the background screens are >always pattern-dithered, if multiple icons and menu-selected the >resulting windows are neatly stacked with each one just up&left of the >one in front of it, etc...]. I like the window stacking thing. But to be honest , I like the X-Windows method (when a window opens, you PLACE it with the mouse.) Shadows and patterns are beneath discussion -- having have them for a year or more myself. > The graphics capabilities adhere neatly to this professionalism. >Although the ][cx, in spite of its speed, does not have near the >animation capbility of the Amiga, I have found that 95% of operations Ok, so NOT having an ability makes something professional ? >use static graphics, anyway. This is why those $150 SuperVGA cards >for the IBM [with 1024x768x256-color graphics -- my upstairs neighbor Good trick. Ill take 2 - but check the specs , are you SURE all 256 colors in that mode ?? I doubt it >MAC's ability to display 256 colors out of 16 Million makes its >graphics look all the more professional. True. > There are also other areas which the Amiga can't even touch. >Such as built-in networking on ALL MAC models [very, very important >in an environment such as a lab or classroom. This is one of the Is this actually correct , do ALL macks have a dedicated network port ?? or is it an adapter to another style port. ALL model amigas can be expanded with slots/add on cards on a bus. **************************************************************************** Doubtful Mormon Meta-physicists Cowed: Startling New Proof Of Life After. Everything I say is Copr. 1990, except the stuff I stole from someone else and the stuff I don't want responsibility for. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP BEST PATH ---> uunet!tronsbox!tron1 Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************
dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) (03/28/90)
A Machintosh running at 1 quadzillion mHz would still be running Finder... A/UX is still not UNIX... -Dino Khoe -- ============================================================================= Dr. of Moshology | | | / \ /\ |/ Any system dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu | |---||____|| |\ can be New Mexico Tech Computer Science | | || | \/ | \ cracked...
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (03/28/90)
The Mac is more professional, but there is only ONE reason I'd ever
want a Mac. My school is obsessed with them, and I could use their
laser printer. That's about it.
The University of Rhode Island will never get an Amiga lab for
applications. I did my resume on a Mac SE in MS Word. I got great
results, but that damn machine is incredibly slow! MS Word is no better
than ProWrite. And MUCH more expensive.
I think part of the Amiga's problem is that there is no market for
mediocre software. Seriously. There are share ware and free ware
programs available on the Amiga that would cost between $40 and $50 on
the Mac. One might think this would help us, but what software company
would want to compete with FREE stuff?
People have preconcieved ideas about PD. It's hard for them to realize
that our PD stuff is GOOD STUFF!
Also, Amiga's don't seem to sell at the same places. You know those
nice, little carpeted places that sell Apple and IBM equipment. An
attractive lady in a concervitive evening gown points to a Mac much like
Vanna White and says in a pleasing voice "Buy a macintosh or I'll KILL
YOU!!" Around here Amigas sell in low-budget software stores.
You'll notice that I never mentioned hardware capability. Thats because
actual performence has very little to do with the purchace decition.
/* "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
"Help! Help! I'm being Repressed!" */limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (03/28/90)
In article <1990Mar28.015925.25385@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > There have been several losses recently, such as CMI and C > Ltd. However, it is my understanding that all CMI products and most C There are people on this net that don't consider them losses and may even attribute their demise to the growing trend for the Amiga market to be more upscale, more concerned about quality, and more professional. (But it's water under the bridge, and I'm sure they had plenty of satisfied customers.) > "If Commodore had to market sushi they'd call it `raw cold fish'" > -- The Bandito, inevitably stolen from someone else No, they would compare it to... no, that's not usually cold. (Gag! I shouldn't knock C-A marketing... we've all seen a marked improvement.) -Tom -- tlimonce@drew.edu Tom Limoncelli As seen in USA Today & tlimonce@drew.uucp +1 201 408 5389 Rec.Humor.Funny! tlimonce@drew.Bitnet Stock quote: Commodore stock closed limonce@pilot.njin.net at $8.13 (.13) on 3-27-1990.
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (03/28/90)
Sure, you could believe that a Mac IIcx with say, oh, four megs MINIMUM runs better than an Amiga 2000. But take the price difference, buy an 8meg RAM card, a flickerFixer, and a multisync, and IMHO (which is the only one that really matters to me after all) you'll have a system which runs circles around any other 0x0,x86 machine. Sure, the Mac can multitask under Multifinder -OR- or A/UX, but both require MEGS of memory. Let's face it. There's a certain charm to multitasking in 512k. [Tangent of how much memory is required to get an IBM to multitask tastefully left out...] -- John M. Adams --*-- Professional Student on the six-year plan! /// Internet: jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu -or- vladimir@maple.circa.ufl.edu /// "Houston, we have a negative on that orbit trajectory." Calvin & Hobbs \\V// Cosysop of BBS:42; an Amiga bbs running QBBS. 904-438-4803. (Florida) \X/
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (03/30/90)
In-Reply-To: message from fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM Do those items come standard on a Mac either??? I don't thinkso. Yes the cost of the Amiga starts to go up when you add them, but lets not forget that you're starting with a substantially lower base price. Take a Mac ][cx...those suckers retail about $5K. What do you have, you've got 1MB...a 16MHz 030, and you still have to add a moniter. The Apple moniter retails at about $999 if I remember right. With an Amiga, start with a 2000 at a retail price of $1899, ad a 28MHz GVP accelerator with 4MB of memory and an HD that's almost TWICE as fast (19ms as opposed to 28). They come to about the same price. The 1084 retails for $399. Now add something like the Mimetics board for $750, and an AmigaNET starter package for about $650. What about software? Get Sculpt/Animate 4D for the Amiga, at about $400. Sculpt 3d for the Mac is $1500...that's WITHOUT any animation features! And these are all retail prices, which means that you can probubly get them a helluva lot cheaper in the real-world...If you want a Mac so bad, and can't think of anything better to spend your money on, get one...at least then we won't have to listen to you bitch. Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " I drank what? " INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | -Socrates | RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | Voice: (512) 994-1602 | | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
goose@surf.sics.bu.oz (Ralph Schwarten) (04/11/90)
From article <35685@dcatla.UUCP>, by mclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar): > [Bear with me, folks, this is kind of long. But I speak as one who uses both > a Mac and an Amiga regularly.] Yes, and so do I and I have used both for much longer... You see I have both machines at home. In use the Mac is faster, smoother, more consistent. Perhaps if Amiga Developers had stuck to a set of guidlines (are there a set of guidelines), nd used the intuition libs, the Amiga's Multitasking might have been usefull... currently it is not. For example on a mac i have a graphics package and a word proccesor open under multifinder... each of these programs are running in "Windows" on my desktop. I can move windows around resize them move information by way of cut and paste between each program... the interface is more than "pretty" or "professional" it is functional and effecient !! Same scenario, enter the Amiga, horrible interface.. disimilair between any two given pieces of software.. instead of a window, I have to pull down this stupid screen, just so that I can see the program underneath. I have about a 50/50 chance of being able to move information between them ARGHHHHHH ! Also multi-tasking goes hand in hand with "multiuser" Something neither the Mac not the Amiga can do. But in a single user multitasking enviroment, the multitasking aspect provides productivity. There is no such thing as Amiga and productivity, it's interface and slow operating speed (except fot animation of course) see to that. Fortunately I only use my amiga for games (That is all it is good for) and use the MAc for when i want to do serious work !! > > BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > [heavily paraphrased] > >>MAC multitasking isn't as bad as Amiga users make it out to be >>Amiga's graphics are kludgy, Mac's are professional >>Mac has better font support >>built-in networking on the Mac makes it the school choice >>more software available for Mac > I totally agree > The first and third points are mainly true; the others are either open > invitations to Yet Another "My Computer is Better" flame war or honest ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Aren't you saying the same thing > misconceptions by someone who hasn't used both machines for a couple of years. > In an effort to avoid the former, I'll assume the latter. > > I've used Macs for about 4 years now, mainly for word processing (I'm a > tech writer). I bought an Amiga 500 about 2 years ago, even though I use > a Mac every day and like it. > > > A Multitasking Comparison > > I use a IIcx at work with 5 Meg RAM & a fast 40Meg Sony hard drive. > Keeping in mind that the IIcx has a 68030 running at (16? 17?) Mhz, > it multitasks about as smoothly as my Amiga 500 with a stock 68000 > (7.16 Mhz). A plain Mac II, using a 68020, doesn't multitask as > well as my 500. Hahaha Don't make me vomit > MultiFinder starts showing its limitations while printing. Every > Mac/MultiFinder system I've used while printing in the background > turns the mouse pointer into a "guess where it's going to end up" > video game -- the pointer jerks all over the screen. I don't have > that problem with my Amiga. The first truth you have uttered ! No, the Amiga's pointer doesn't jerk all over the screen... it stops and the whole machine hangs until the printing is finished ( and that is all tasks buddy boy !) > [crap about add on packages so that the Amiga can "look" be as functional as the Mac deleted] > > How much video/animation software do you see for the Mac? Each > machine fills different niche markets -- the sharp displays and > graphics on the Mac have made it a nice office machine. The Amiga's > NTSC-compatible video makes it a nice studio machine. > True, the Amiga comes into it's own here so why argue on the other points ? Ralph Schwarten Bond University Gold Coast Australia
dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) (04/11/90)
In article <950@surf.sics.bu.oz> goose@surf.sics.bu.oz (Ralph Schwarten)
whines:
[A bunch of half-truths deleted. (Maybe this guy works for Apple marketing?)]
Look folks, this guy is frustrated because he can't "point-and-shoot" at
everything on the Amiga, obviously doesn't know what he's doing and blames the
Amiga for his inept abilities. Please, let's not start a war with our
little friend down-under.
So, how about we all realize this guy can't make the machine do what he wants,
nod our heads, and sit back and grin while we do our work twice as fast, with
half as much aggravation as he does on his Mac.
[That is, if we can wait for the stupid thing to get done printing! :-)]
--
Dan Cogswell | If *ONE MORE* | Brakes waste gas.
(313)625-3234 | person makes | Microwaves should
INET: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu | a joke about | be seen - not heard!
cogswell@unix.secs.oakland.edu | "Cogswell Cogs!!"| Kill the smiley!! fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/12/90)
In article <648@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes: > So, how about we all realize this guy can't make the machine do what he wants, > nod our heads, and sit back and grin while we do our work twice as fast, with > half as much aggravation as he does on his Mac. > > [That is, if we can wait for the stupid thing to get done printing! :-)] Which "stupid thing" to get done printing? Oh. Sorry. :} Actually, there are several spoolers available for the Mac that work just fine. No jerking pointers. No hanging up. Etc. I think this one has become a non-issue. Built-in on one system, easily available for the 'tother. On to the next point. ------------ "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (04/12/90)
On 11 Apr 90 07:04:13 GMT you said: > >Yes, and so do I and I have used both for much longer... >You see I have both machines at home. >In use the Mac is faster, smoother, more consistent. Perhaps if Amiga If you are talking graphics, I do not understand. I'll give you being more consistent, but graphics wise, the Amiga (comparing identical processors) is faster and, in my opinion, smoother. I'd rather if you were more specific what you mean by that. >Developers had stuck to a set of guidlines (are there a set of >guidelines), nd used the intuition libs, the Amiga's Multitasking might >have been usefull... currently it is not. > Usefull is a relative term, but I find going from my multitasking amiga to any other system a pain. I miss it. In fact, I don't think I could ever use any system to any serious degree that didn't multitask as well as the Amiga does. There are guidelines, and they are adhered to fairly well. >For example on a mac i have a graphics package and a word proccesor open >under multifinder... each of these programs are running in "Windows" on >my desktop. I can move windows around resize them move information by >way of cut and paste between each program... the interface is more than >"pretty" or "professional" it is functional and effecient !! I define functional and effecient as operating at a reasonable speed. The Mac, I believe, doesn't do this under a Mac II. >Same scenario, enter the Amiga, horrible interface.. disimilair between >any two given pieces of software.. instead of a window, I have to pull >down this stupid screen, just so that I can see the program underneath. >I have about a 50/50 chance of being able to move information between I perfer using multiple screens rather than windows. It organizes the program better. I have found that the user interface does vary between applications, but I've never experienced a problem. If a resize gadget is differently shaped, it still is in the same place, and operates identically. I suspect that you are using a bad word processor. If you hate a specific application, please tell us which one it is. I despise Scribble, but that's old. ProWrite, I love. I'll agree that not enough applications support the clipboard. >them ARGHHHHHH ! Also multi-tasking goes hand in hand with "multiuser" No, it doesn't. The Amiga will probably never be a multi-user computer, and I don't see why any desk top computer needs to be. >Something neither the Mac not the Amiga can do. But in a single user >multitasking enviroment, the multitasking aspect provides productivity. >There is no such thing as Amiga and productivity, it's interface and >slow operating speed (except fot animation of course) see to that. >Fortunately I only use my amiga for games (That is all it is good for) >and use the MAc for when i want to do serious work !! Again, what are you comparing the Amiga to? Productivity on the Amiga is only limited by the software available. And that is not a major concern anymore. The thing limiting the productivity of the Mac II is it's lack of multitasking. The Mac SE by that and it's speed. >> >> BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> [heavily paraphrased] >> >>>MAC multitasking isn't as bad as Amiga users make it out to be >>>Amiga's graphics are kludgy, Mac's are professional >>>Mac has better font support >>>built-in networking on the Mac makes it the school choice >>>more software available for Mac >> >I totally agree > I do not. I cannot comment on the current state of Multifinder. I saw it a year ago and it seemed to slow down the machine dramatically, and eat memory. I'm sure it's much better now. As far as kludgy, I haven't a clue what you are refering to. With a little addition to the system, you can have 660 X 440 at 16 color workbench. Better font support? Again, I'm not sure what that means. I'm not a big fan of Macintosh networking. AppleTalk does come in handy when sharing a laser printer in an office situation. In our Mac labs, the network is very inadequate. Each Mac must boot off a floppy, and the file searver must be write-enabled. Our labs have spent many hours down because of virus'. > > >> misconceptions by someone who hasn't used both machines for a couple of >years. >> In an effort to avoid the former, I'll assume the latter. >> >> I've used Macs for about 4 years now, mainly for word processing (I'm a >> tech writer). I bought an Amiga 500 about 2 years ago, even though I use >> a Mac every day and like it. >> >> >> A Multitasking Comparison >> >> I use a IIcx at work with 5 Meg RAM & a fast 40Meg Sony hard drive. >> Keeping in mind that the IIcx has a 68030 running at (16? 17?) Mhz, >> it multitasks about as smoothly as my Amiga 500 with a stock 68000 >> (7.16 Mhz). A plain Mac II, using a 68020, doesn't multitask as >> well as my 500. > > Hahaha Don't make me vomit Apparently you disagree. The ability of the Mac to multitask is the ability of Multifinder to multitask. Multitasking on the Mac will always be poorer than the Amiga because the Amiga's OS was designed to multitask. The applications written for the Amiga were written with multitasking in mind. The Mac wasn't. If you feel multifinder servs you multitasking all you require, then that's a personal opinion, and I can't argue you there. Obviously, the Mac II will run faster than a stock Amiga. That, however, is not a fair comparison. >> MultiFinder starts showing its limitations while printing. Every >> Mac/MultiFinder system I've used while printing in the background >> turns the mouse pointer into a "guess where it's going to end up" >> video game -- the pointer jerks all over the screen. I don't have >> that problem with my Amiga. > > The first truth you have uttered ! No, the Amiga's pointer >doesn't jerk all over the screen... it stops and the whole machine hangs >until the printing is finished ( and that is all tasks buddy boy !) > You got yourself a nasty application. I have yet to see a single application stop the machine while it prints. What *ARE* you using? > >Ralph Schwarten >Bond University >Gold Coast >Australia F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet I am an expert on all subjects, and as long as you don't ask me any questions, you will remain convinced.